JK 649 
1922 
Copy 1 



evTH uoNGRESS, ) SENATE. j Kepokt 

U Session. j ( No. 836. 



INVESTIGATION OF EXAMINING DIVISION OF CIVIL 
SERVICE COMMISSION. 



April 20 (calendar day, Jxily 25), 1922. — Ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Sterling, from the select oommittee to investigate the examining 
division of the Civil Service Commission, submitted the following 

EEPORT. 

^jZ.-'T^LiU ^ / (Pursuant to S. Res. 199.) 

Your committee, consisting of five members of the Civil Service 
Committee of the Senate, appointed under Senate Resolution No. 
199, respectfully report as follows : 

Said resolution reads : 

Resolved, That a committee of five Senators, who shall be the members of 
the Committee on Civil Service, be appointed by the President of the Senate, 
and the said committee is hereby authorized and instructed to investigate the 
proceedings of the examining division of the Civil Service Commission, and 
particularly to ascertain whether political influence has been used in said 
examinations and in the making and alteration of grades relating to the same, 
and whether the act of Congress giving preference to ex-service men in ap- 
pointment to office under civil-service regulation has been observed and 
executed. 

Said committee is empowered to sit during the recess and sessions of the 
Senate, at such times and places as by it may be deemed advisable, to reqiaire 
by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of witnesses and the production of 
books, papers, and documents, except those that have been received by the 
commission under pledge of confidence, to administer oaths, and to employ 
stenographers at a cost not exceeding $1.25 per printed page, and such clerical 
assistance as may be necessary. All expenses of the committee incurred under 
this resolution shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate on vouchers 
authorized by the committee and signed by the chairman thereof. 

Said committee shall report its proceedings and findings to the Senate within 
90 days. 

In pursuance of this resolution the committee invited statements 
and communications relating to the proceedings of the Civil Service 
Commission and of the examining division thereof for the purpose 
of ascertaining p articular l}'^ whether political influence had been 
used in civil service examinations or in the making and alteration 
of grades or ratings of candidates, and whether any act of Congress 
giving preference to ex-service men in the appointment to offices 
under civil-service regulations had been observed and executed. 

While complaints of irregular methods and practices by the Civil 
Service Commission and its examining division, for the most part 



2 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

related to examinations for postmaster appointments, the gradings 
and recommendations for appointment to various other positions 
were also called in question by the statements made to and communi- 
cations filed with the commission. 

POSTMASTER EXAMINATIONS. 

Since they are the subject of most of the complaints, it is pro- 
posed first to consider the procedure and result of the examinations 
for postmaster appointments except those wherein it is alleged that 
discrimination was made against ex-service men. These are reserved 
for separate mention. 

At the first hearing of the committee attention was directed to 
postmaster appointments at several places with the suggestion, if not 
the direct charge, that undue influence had been brought to bear to 
secure the recommendation for appointment, or the appointment of 
a particular candidate, or a rerating for the benefit of a particular 
candidate; or that the nominee or appointee was disqualified by 
reason of immoral conduct, incompetency, or residence elsewhere 
than within the delivery of the office to which he was seeking to be 
appointed. The following were designated : Orangeburg, S. C. ; 
Spencer and Oaktown, Inch ; Ironton, Ohio ; Fond du Lac, Wis. ; 
Denton, Md. ; Lisbon, N. H. ; Lenior, iS[. C. ; Brighton, Colo. ; Mor- 
risville, Mo. ; Ousted, Mich. ; Eoff , Okla. ; Sodus Point and Lake 
George, N. Y. ; and Pottsville and Duncannon, Pa. A number of 
letters relating to the proceedings in the examination, grading, or 
appointment of candidates for the position of postmaster at the 
places named were submitted to the committee (pp. 1-3, hearings). 

At the same hearing the committee was requested to inquire into 
the rerating of the candidate that had been recommended for ap- 
pointment at Glenwood, Ark. ; also to inquire into the methods 
and manner of the rating and appointment of the candidates for 
postmaster at Paragould, Prescott, and Marked Tree, Ark. ; Cen- 
tral Spring, Mich.; Elizabeth, W. Va. ; Avon by the Sea, iS^. J.; 
Winchendon and Haverhill, Mass., and Cottonport, La. (See pp. 
4 to 8, hearings.) Letters which had been received in regard to 
certain of these offices were filed with the committee. 

At the second hearing of the committee correspondence rela- 
tive to the appointment of a postmaster at Eustis, Fla., was sub- 
mitted and made a part of the record of the committee. (See pp. 
13-15, inclusive, hearings.) Correspondence was also submitted con- 
cerning the appointment of a postmaster at St. Petersburg, Fla., 
found on pages 16 to 18, inclusive, hearings. 

At a third meeting of the committee letters were sumitted rela- 
tive to postmaster appointments at the following places: Gardner 
and Peabody, Mass.; Beaver, Okla.; Soddy, Tenn. ; Decatur, Ark.; 
and also for the record a memorandum relative to the post office at 
Pulaski, Tenn. ; also letters concerning charges against John W. 
Overall for trafficking in civil-service appointments. (S^ pp. 19-27, 
inclusive, hearing^.) 

On the same day other letters were submitted relating to the post 
offices at Leroy and Palestine, 111. ; Plainview, Emmet, Fidton. Alma, 
Sheridan, Yellville, Atkins, Delight, McCrory, Mansfield, Rogers, 



LiB«ARY OF CONGRESS 



^K^^^. 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 3 



c^r 



Perry, Monette, and Hackett, Ark.; Kewanee and Lagrange, Ind. ; 
Columbus, Ivans. : New Market, Va. : Pottsville, Pa ; Culpeper, Va. ; 
and Roff, Okla. 

At a later meeting of the committee letters were submitted relative 
to the postmaster appointments at Ironton, Dayton, and Troy, Ohio ; 
also letters relative to the postmastership at Natick, Mass., with ac-; 
company ing newspaper statement, and letters from H. E. Dickinson, 
F. H. Richardson, John P. Hess, Mrs. Naomi G. Hazel, and I. E. 
Odom, of Fulton, Ark. (See pp. 31-3-2, hearings.) 

All the statements and letters pertaining to these several offices 
and which called in question the proceedings of the Civil Service 
Commission or its examining division in rating, rerating, or certif}^- 
ing for appointment any of the candidates for such offices were 
submitted to the Civil Service Commission for a statement and 
report of such proceedings, as shown by the records of the com- 
mission. The commission in nearly every case thus submitted made 
full and complete reply .by way of memoranda furnished the com- 
mittee, which memoranda are set forth in the printed hearings. 
These memoranda were printed by order of the committee and 
copies were furnished those Senators who had made statements 
before the committee or who had filed letters with the committee 
touching any of the offices in question. 

These statements of the Civil Service Commission made from its 
records are plain and unequivocal, and in the opinion of the com- 
mittee are, on their face and in nearly every case, a complete answer 
to any charge of improper, irregular, or unlawful methods or prac- 
tices on the part of the commission or its examining division. 

Many of the com^plaints made of the action of the examining di- 
vision or of the commission are based on a seeming misapprehension, 
of the law and of the Executive orders relating to appointments 
under the civil service, particularly to postmaster appointments and 
to the rights of ex-service men under the law and Executive orders. 

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

Attention is first called to the Executive order of May 10, 1921, 
governing examinations and appointments of postmasters at offices 
of the first, second, and third class. The order is as follows : 

When a vacancy exists or hereafter occurs in tlie position of postmaster at 
an office of the first, second, or third class, if such vacancy is not filled by 
nomination of some person within the competitive classified civil service who 
has the required qualifications, then the Postmaster General shall certify the 
fact to the Civil Service Commission, which shall forthwith hold an open 
competitive examination to test the fitness of applicants to fill such vacancy, 
and when such examination has been held and the papers in connnection there- 
with have been rated the said commission shall certify the results thereof to 
the Postmaster General, who shall submit to the President the name of one of 
the highest three qualified eligibles for appointment to fill such vacancy unless 
it is established that the character or residence of any such applicant dis- 
qualifies him for appointment : Provided, That at the expiration of the term 
of any person appointed to such position through examination before the Civil 
Service Commission the Postmaster General may, in his discretion, submit the 
name of such person to the President for renomination without further 
examination. 



4 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

No person who has passed his sixty-fifth birthday, or who has not actually 
resided within the delivery of such office for two years next preceding such 
vacancy, shall he given the examination herein provided for.^ 

■ If under this order it is desired to make nomination for any office of a per- 
son in the competitive classified service, such person must first be found by 
the Civil Service Commission to meet the minimum requirements for the office. 

It must be observed that the Executive order does not contemplate 
any preference for military service in postmaster appointments, such 
preference being given only under the order of October 14, 1921, a 
copy of which is hereinafter set forth. Further, that under the order 
of May 10 the Postmaster General is required to submit to the Presi- 
dent for appointment one of the highest three qualified eligibles. 
The Civil Service Commission, therefore, having finally certified to 
the Post Office Department its list of the highest three qualified 
eligibles, is relieved of further responsibility in the matter and the 
selection and appointment of one of the three rests with the depart- 
ment and the President. 

Among the regulations prescribed by the Civil Service Commission 
for examinations for offices of the third class are the following : 

Candidates for offices having annual compensation from $1,000 to $2,200, 
inclusive, will be assembled for a written examination and will be examined 
in the following subjects, which will have the relative weights indicated : 



Subjects. 



Weights. 



Business training, experience, and fitness (under this subject, full and careful considera- 
tion is given to the candidate's business training and experience. The rating is based 
upon the candidate's sworn statements of his personal history, as verified after inquiry 
by the commission. It must be clearly shown that the candidate has demonstrated 
ability in meeting and deaUng satisfactorily with the public) 

Accounts and arithmetic (this test includes a simple statement of a postmaster's monthly 
money-order account in a prepared form furnished the candidate in the examination, 
and a" few problems comprising addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, per- 
centage, and their business applications) 

Penmanship (a test of ability to write legibly, rated on the specimen shown in the subject 
of letter writing) 

Letter writing (this subject is intended to test the candidate's abihty to express himself 
intelligently in a business letter on a practical subject) - . .1 

Total 



100 



Age. — Candidates in competitive examinations for the position of postmaster 
at an office of the third class must have reached their twenty-first birthday 
on the date of the examination, and must not have passed their sixty-fifth 
birthday on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. 

These offices pay a compensation of from $1,000 to $2,200 per 
annum. 

In testing the fitness of candidates for offices of the first and second 
classes, the following regulations are prescribed by the commission : 

Candidates for offices of the first and second classes will not be required to 
report for examination at any place, but will be rated on the following sub- 
jects, which will have the relative weights indicated : 





Subjects. 


Weights. 


1 


Education and training ... .. . . 


20 


?. 


Business experience and fitness :.. 


80 




Total : 






100 









1 This paragraph was c^anged by Executive order July 27, 1921, to read as follows : 
" No person who has ,/assed his sixty-fifth birthday, or who has not actually resided 
within the delivery of such office for two years next preceding the date of the examina- 
tion, shall be given the examination herein provided for." 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 5 

Age. — Candidates in competitive examinations for the position of i^ostmaster 
at an office of the first class must have reached their tliii*tieth birtliday on 
tlie date of the examination, and for the position of postmaster at an office 
of tlie second class their twenty-fifth birthday on the date of the examination. 
Those who have passed their sixty-fifth birthday on the date of the occurrence 
of the vacancy are not eligible to compete for any office. 

Additional information required. — In addition to the full and detailed infor- 
mation called for by questions 21 and 23 of the application (Form 2241), the 
candidates are required to furnish the following in connection with each 
responsible position held by them : 

(a) The number of persons under their supervision. 

(&) The character of the business done by the person, firm, or corporation. 

(c) The volume of business done annually. 

(d) The commercial rating of each person, firm, or corporation. 
Prerequisites — Offices over $6,000. — For offices paying more than $6,000 a year 

the candidate must show that for at least seven years he has been engaged in 
occupations in which he has demonstrated ability to organize, to direct, and 
to manage business affairs to the extent required of a postmaster of the post 
office for which he is a candidate. 

Offlces over $4,000, including $6,000. — For offices paying more than $4,000, 
up to and including $6,000, a year the candidate must show that for at least 
five years he has been engaged in occupations in which he has demonstrated 
ability to organize, to direct,- and to manage business affairs to the extent 
required of a postmaster of the post office for which he is a candidate. 

Offices over $2,200, including $4,000.— For offices paying over $2,200, up to 
and including $4,000, a year the candidate must show that for at least three 
years he has been engaged in occupations in which he has demonstrated ability 
to conduct the affairs of a business to the extent required of a postmaster of 
the post office for which he is a candidate. 

For all offices. — It must also appear in all cases that the candidates have 
demonstrated their ability to meet and deal with the public satisfactorily. 

METHOD OF RATING EXAJIINATIONS FOR OFFICES HA\T:NG ANNUAL COMPENSATION 

ABOVE $2,200. 

In examination for offices having annual compensation above $2,200 the rat- 
ing on the education and training of the candidate will be determined from the 
information furnished in answer to question 21 of the application, as follows, 
and upon corroborative information : 

" Question 21. — Submit a complete statement of your education and training, 
giving the names of the institutions at which you have studied, the length of 
attendance (Avith dates), the courses of study pursued, and the degrees, if 
any, conferred." 

The rating on business experience and fitness will be determined by the 
character and extent of the business experience of the candidate as shown, 
first, by his answer to question 24 of the application, which reads as follows : 

" Oquestion 24. — State fully and in detail all the practical experience you 
have had in any profession, occupation, or business of a character tending to 
qualify you for the position of postmaster. State (a) dates when employed; 
(&) where; (c) name and address of employer; {d) salary or compensation 
received; (e) the specific nature of your duties in each employment. The 
following information concerning each commercial position held by you should 
also be furnished: (a) The number of persons under your supervision, if any, 
and the character of the work done by these persons; (&) the character of 
the business done by the employing person, firm, or corporation; ^c) the 
volume of business done annually; {d) the commercial rating of the employing 
ITerson, firm, or corporation; (e) your relation to other employees holding 
supervisory positions, if any." 

And, second, by a careful investigation of each candidate by the Civil Serv- 
ice Commission. The investigation covers two purposes, namely, first, full in- 
quiry as to each candidate's suitability and fitness for the office by reason 
of his character and personal characteristics, and if he is found unsuitable 
by the commission as a result of such inquiry he, of course, will not be de- 
clared eligible ; the second purpose of the investigation is the same careful 
inquiry from persons best qualified to know of the business qualifications, 
ability, and experience of each candidate, the report of such inquiry to be 
confined to the findings of facts and to be made a part of the evidence and 
record upon which the commission rates the candidate. 



6 IlSrVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL, SERVICE COMMISSION. 

But, taking the cases in their order as hereinbefore set forth, ex- 
cept the first, which is reserved for separate statement, the commit- 
tee invites the attention of Senators to the memoranda with a brief 
statement as to the issue involved in each case, and the opinion of the 
committee as to the propriety and justice of the findings of tlie com- 
mission. It will be understood that the pages given have reference 
to the page or pages of the hearings. 

First is the case of the post office at Spencer, Ind., (p. 33) : Mr. 
Lyman D. Heavenridge had the highest rating and was nominated 
by the President for confirmation by the Senate. It was claimed that 
he had been qualified by the commission over the decision of the 
examining board, when, in fact, he is afflicted with locomotor ataxia 
and is physically unable to perform the duties of postmaster ; that he 
had been "recommended by the organization." The report of the 
commission in this case ought to, it seems to the committee, satisfy 
any reasonable person that the commission did not overrule the ex- 
amining board in qualifying Mr. Heavenridge for the place; that 
he is not afflicted with locomotor ataxia ; and that he was not recom- 
mended by any political organization, although representations 
were made in behalf of another candidate ; also that he was the best 
qualified of the highest three eligibles. 

Ironton, Ohio (p. 34), was a case where the examination was held 
September 6, 1921, followed by investigations by personal represen- 
tatives who interviewed 28 of the leading business men and citizens 
of Ironton as to the character and business experience of nine differ- 
ent candidatea. The Post Office Department asked that the Ironton 
examination be rated promptly. The result of the examination v/as 
forwarded to the Post Office Department under date of November 3, 
1921. Here the charge was made that the appointee had been " recom- 
mended by the organization " ; that a former assistant postmaster 
had been removed for cause ; and the examiners refused to recommend 
his qualification on that ground and because his vouchers were un- 
satisfactory ; but that the commission overruled the recommendation 
of the examining board and held the applicant qualified. 

The memorandum of the commission in regard to the considera- 
tions which justified the commission in placing Mr. Abele among the 
three eligibles is very full and complete. Under the statement of 
facts made by the commission we think it was fully justified in plac- 
ing Mr. Abele in the list. While he stood lowest of the three, having 
a rating of 74.20, the matter of his selection for the position was for 
the President to determine. 

Fond clu Lac, Wis. (pp. 36, 188) : Charge of immoral character 
against Mr. Kraemer, the appointee. This case is very fully discussed. 
While the charge made by Mr. Fred Kastorff against Mr. Kraemer is 
by affidavit and is quite specific, alleging one instance of gross im- 
mioralty, the report of the commission shows that the general senti- 
ment of leading citizens and business men of Fond du Lac as found 
by inspectors who visited that city and made personal investigation 
is favorable to Mr. Kraemer. There was no evidence whatever cor- 
roborating the charge of Mr. Kastorff ; the charge was emphatically 
denied by Mr. Kraemer. Moreover, Mr. Kastorff later wrote a letter 
which in effect repudiates the statements of his affidavit, and although 
he subsequently stated that the facts set forth in his affidavit rather 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 7 

than the letter were true, under the conditions your committee is of 
the opinion that the commission was fully justified in giving Mr. 
Kraemer, after a second investigation of the charge against him, a 
place on the eligible list. 

Denton, Md. (pp. 43, 182) : In this case the charge was made that 
Mr. Samuel G. Nuttle, the appointee, who stood second on the list, 
as county treasurer for Caroline County for the years 1906 to 1910 
was short in his accounts in the sum of $2,500, which shortage was 
discovered by auditors employed by the county in 1918; and that 
the deficiency found was still unpaid by Mr. Nuttle, it being stated 
that Mr. Nuttle pleaded the time limit as reason for not making 
payment. 

There is no statement or evidence to show that any action was 
ever brought against Mr. Nuttle by Caroline County to recover 
the amount of the alleged shortage. The investigation made by the 
commission seemed to show a great preponderance of evidence in 
support of the good reputation, honesty, good habits, and morals 
of Mr. Nuttle. One of the references, given by the rival candidate, 
who seemed to have heard that Mr. Nuttle had been short in his 
accounts, stated, according to the commission, that " no dishonesty 
was suspected but the discrepancy was supposed to be due to bad 
management." While your committee is of the opinion that the 
commission should have made a more exhaustive inquiry into this 
case, yet, considering the source of the charge made and also what 
seemed to be the general opinion of the honesty and integrity of 
Mr. Nuttle as entertained by his neighbors and fellow citizens, the 
committee do not believe the commission subject to censure for giving 
Mr. Nuttle a place on the eligible list. 

Lisbon, N. H. (pp. 37-38) : Charged that a dentist without busi- 
ness experience was qualified over the recommendation of the ex- 
amining board. The dentist, James E. Collins, the third eligible, 
was nominated by the President. The committee respectfully in- 
vites earnest attention to the report of the commission in this case. 
There can be no question as to the eligibility of Doctor Collins for 
the place. 

Lenoir, N. C. (pp. 44—45) : Charge that a physician was qualified 
in spite of the fact thati the examining board had refused to recom- 
mend him because of lack of business experience and because of bad 
vouchers. 

It appears from the memorandum of the commission that the ex- 
aminers of the commissio'n who first considered the cases of five ap- 
plicants for this post office recommended but two eligibles. But un- 
der the Executive order of May 10, 1921, the President and the de- 
partment are entitled to have three eligibles for consideration, and 
the commission gave attention to the case with a view to ascertaining 
whether one of the remaining three candidates could properly be 
certified as eligible. The charge that there were any " bad vouchers " 
against Doctor Goodman is denied. Sixteen representative citizens 
and business men of Lenoir were examined in regard to Doctor Good- 
man, and after full consideration the commission determined that he 
was entitled to a place on the eligible list. But, in any event. Doctor 
Goodman was not selected by the President and the place went to 
Mr. John C. Smith, the second eligible certified by the commission 



^1 



8 INVESTIGATION' EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 

and who was entitled to military preference. This would clearly 
show that the appointing power had nothing to do with ranking 
Doctor Goodman among the eligibles, and there is nothing in the 
record to suggest that the commission was moved by a.nj improper 
influence in placing Doctor Goodman on the list. 

Brighton, Colo. (pp. 45-46) : Charge that the appointee was not 
qualified by examining board because of alleged dishonesty in con- 
nection with elections and that the commission without further evi- 
dence overruled the examining board. 

There were two applicants, Arthur R. Gullette and Clyde L. Hack- 
ley. Gullette was given an eligible rating by the examiner who 
first considered the case, but on review the chief examiner and the 
commission reached the decision that Mr. Hackley was entitled to an 
eligible rating, though less than that given to Mr. Gullette. Ac- 
cording to the commission the preponderating weight of testimony of 
leading citizens was decidedly in Mr. Hackley's favor. 

The committee is of the opinion that the decision reached on review 
was correct and that the commission acted most justly in ranking 
Mr. Hackley as eligible, and that, too, despite the charge of alleged 
dishonesty in connection with an election 12 years ago. Your com- 
mittee agrees with the commission that it would not have been justi- 
fied under the circumstances in giving Mr. Hacklej^ an ineligible 
rating. 

Morrisville. Mo. (pp. 49-50) : Charge that only Democrats suc- 
ceeded in getting on the eligible list at an examination held July 21, 
1921, and that at the instance of the Congressman from that dis- 
trict ratings were changed so that a Democrat was lowered a fraction 
over four points and the Republican, who had the recommendation 
of the organization, was advanced to the lowest place on the list and 
appointed. 

The examination was held September 24, 1921, and not July 21, 
1921 ; there were seven candidates, of whom six were found to be 
eligible ; appeal on ground that Mr. Becker, who ranked fourth, was 
a better qualified candidate than Mr. Jones, who ranked third. The 
review, together with the confidential testimony of representative 
citizens of Morrisville, placed Mr. Becker third, with a rating of 
80.53, the same as on the previous rating ; but Mr. Jones on the same 
review and testimony was reduced to 77.13. 

There is nothing whatever to show that the examiner or the com- 
mission were influenced by improper motives or that the proceedings 
were in any respect irregular, or that any mistake was made in 
reducing the rating of Mr. Jones. 

Ousted, Mich. (pp. 39-40) : Complaint by Mrs. Verre Roberts. 
The issue seems to be as to which of the two applicants, Ray G. 
Turner and Mrs. Roberts, was the better qualified for the place. 
The ratings were 86.10 for Mr. Turner and 85.33 for Mrs. Roberts. 
The commission found it clear from the record of the examination 
that Mr. Turner, because of his more " responsible experience " was 
better qualified than Mrs. Roberts for the place. The President 
nominated Mr. Turner, and your committee is unable to say that the 
commission was not right in its conclusion. 

Sodus Point, N. Y. (p. 50) : Charge that a reexamination was 
secured through political influence after Mr. Van L. De Ville had 
established eligibility. 



INVESTIGATIOIvr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 9 

On the first examination there was but one eligible, namely, Mr. 
Van L. De Ville, with an average of 89.48. The department re 
quested the commission to announce another examination, with a 
view to obtaining three eligibles for its consideration. A new 
examination was held and resulted in five eligibles, Mr. Van L. 
De Ville being first with a rating of 90.31. The commission's work 
was done, and it was for the President to determine whether Mr. 
De Ville or Mr. Carlton H. Topping, with his preference of five 
points on account of military service, which gave him a rating of 
85.60, or Mr. Glenn C. Turner, the third highest eligible, with a rat- 
ing of 84.90, should be appointed. The certification was made March 
23, 1922. No appointment had been made when the memorandum of 
the commission was filed with your committee. 

Oaktown, Ind. (p. 40) : Charge by Walter L. Bland that, having 
established his eligibility, a new examination was ordered to avoid 
the certainty of his appointment. A sufficient answer to this charge 
is found in the fact that, as shown by the memorandum of the com- 
mission, the new examination was for the purpose of securing three 
eligibles, and that in the new examination Mr. Bland himself stood 
first with a rating of 82.90. 

Lake George, N. Y. (p. 41) : Charge that indictments for serious 
offenses were pending against Fred F. Hawley, the appointee, and 
his two sons at the time of the appointment. 

Examination August 12, 1921; two candidates; Fred F. Hawley 
obtained a rating of 90, Fred G. Worden a rating of 78. The com- 
mission gave a very full statement showing the qualifications of the 
respective candidates as found from the examination papers. Aside 
from the question of his being guilty of any criminal offense, we 
think the ratings of the commission are not the subject of criticism. 
As to the charge made, the commission states that so far as it has 
been able to ascertain no indictment was found against Mr. Hawley 
and there is no showing that he has ever been charged with any 
criminal offense, although indictments were found against two sons 
in connection with the stealing of a registered pouch from the post 
office some six years ago. The commission had confidential informa- 
tion concerning the two candidates, and no one made any mention of 
the indictments against the sons of Mr. Hawley except close relatives 
of Mr. Worden, the rival candidate In any event the appointee was 
in no way involved. We see nothing to criticize in the action of the 
commission in this case. 

Roff, Okla. (p. 96) : Charge that three Democrats having quali- 
fied as the highest eligibles "an effort is being made to reopen the 
case for the purpose of placing a Republican within the three highest 
eligibles." On the examination four persons were found to be 
eligible; two ineligible. William O. Pratt, who makes the charge, 
was the first eligible, with a rating of 82.28. There was an appeal 
on behalf of the second eligible, James W. Bohannon. The com- 
mission determined upon a personal investigation. The case was 
recalled from the department for that purpose. Upon the report of 
the investigators, which meanwhile had been made, there was a re- 
rating which gave Mr. Bohannon first place with an average of 
S2.33, and Mr. Pratt' second, with a preference right of five points, 
79.78. There is nothing to suggest that the investigation was not 
fairly and honestly conducted. 



10 HSrVESTIGATIOK EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

Pottsville, Pa. (p. 52) : Charge violation of the civil-service rules 
in the selection of Miss Alice A. Krebs. Miss Krebs claimed that 
she was entitled to the appointment as a promotion by virtue of her 
position in the classified service. The charge, however, that the 
civil-service rules were violated is refuted by the concluding state- 
ment of the commission, which is : " It is entirely and particularly 
within the spirit of the civil-service principles to fill vacancies by 
promotion within the service, and the record of the Post Office De- 
partment in recommending promotions to the position of postmaster 
is enviable." The record shows clearly that Miss Krebs was eligible 
for promotion to postmaster, and the commission so certified to the 
department under date of January 18, 1922. This effectually dis- 
poses of the charge that civil-service rules had been violated. 

Glenwood, Ark. (pp. 59, 143) : Examination July 9, 1921; three 
candidates, William B. Gould, 86.50 ; Eobert A. Jones, 78.40 ; Perry 
W. Hampton, 64.70 ; appeal by Mr. Hampton on ground that he was 
not given a proper rating on the subject of "business training, ex- 
perience, ancl fitness." The office commands a salary of $1,000. On 
this appeal the ratings were reviewed, in accordance with the regular 
procedure, by a different board than the one who considered the 
papers in the first instance. The result of the review was that Mr. 
Hampton's rating in the subject of letter writing was increased from 
65 to 70 per cent and that his rating in business training and experi- 
ence was raised from 73 to 85 per cent. This gave him a general 
average percentage of 70.20. This left two candidates with percent- 
ages considerably higher than those of Mr. Hampton. The commit- 
tee sees no ground to criticize the action of the commission or ex- 
amining officers. 

Paragoulcl, Ark. (pp. 63-66) : Charge that there was a mistake in 
the method and manner of rating and a request that the committee 
should make inquiry. 

There were five candidates, all apparently qualified. The proceed- 
ings are fully set out in the hearings. The ratings in this case, as ap- 
pears from the statement of the commission, were according to rela- 
tive weights rather than percentages. The commission states in its 
memorandum as follows : " The examination in this case, as in the 
case of all other presidential post offices with salaries of $2,300 and 
above, consists of ratings in the following elements with relative 
weights indicated " : The elements specified are, " Education and 
training," with a relative weight of 1 ; " Business experience and fit- 
ness," relative weight of 4 ; total, 5. In such ratings it was not neces- 
sary, under the Executive order of May 10, 1921, that numerical 
ratings be assigned to candidates who were found not to be among 
the three best qualified. The commission says : " It is the careful and 
painstaking consideration and weighing of evidence in the case of 
<>ach individual candidate that constitutes the rating, not the mere 
assijrnment of a numerical percentage." 

The examination resulted in certifying Albert S. Snowden, James 
P. Cathey, and Herschel Neely. The other two candidates were 
younger men and according to the commission had not had equal 
responsible positions as the three others. The commission believes 
that while Mr. Oscar C. Harvey and Mr. Guss H. Powell were quali- 
^ fied for the position they were not equally qualified with the three 



lISrVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. IL 

whose names were certified for consideration for appointment. The 
committee sees nothing in the report to indicate that any political or 
other improper influence was used in the rating given, and there was 
no evidence whatever to that effect. Your committee are of the 
opinion, however, that the ratings of all candidates should have been 
given, and that this would in all cases be the more satisfactory prac- 
tice. 

Prescott, Ark. (p. 61) : Simply a question of the residence of Mr, 
Jack Grayson, the appointee for this place. The memorandum of the 
commission sets forth the evidence concerning residence and from 
which the commission concluded that Mr. Grayson was eligible. The 
committee can not say that the finding of the commission was not 
correct. In any event, Mr. Grayson having been appointed at the 
time of the filing of the memorandum, the case is beyond the jurisdic- 
tion of the commission. 

Cottonport, La. (p. 70) : In this case no specific charge is made. 
It was stated in the hearing that there was a letter from Cottonport, 
La. There were five candidates, all of whom received an eligible 
rating. The highest was Joseph D. Hebert, aji ex-service man, who 
was nominated by the President for the place. 

Eustis, Fla. (pp. 13-15) : Charged that it was the purpose of the Re- 
publican organization in Florida to have a Mr. Bishop nominated to 
l)e postmaster at Eustis, and that influence was brought to bear on the 
commission in order that he might be certified as eligible for appoint- 
ment. 

It appears that "on first examination Mr. Bishop did not qualify, 
and accordingly the Eustis case was sent back to the commission 
for review. This apparently gave rise to the charge or suspicion that 
improper influence was brought to bear on the commission to cer- 
tify that Mr. Bishop was eligible. The hearings show the cor- 
respondence between Senator Duncan U. Fletcher and the president 
of the Civil Service Commission in regard to this case. The letter 
of Mr. Bartlett, president of the commission, of date February 13, 
1922, addressed to Senator Fletcher, sets forth the statement of Mr. 
H. A. Filer, chief examiner of the commission, which refers to the 
care with which Mr. Filer on review had read the files, and which 
would justify a rating of 65 per cent for Mr. Bishop in the subject 
of business training, experience, and fitness. His rating otherwise, 
added to the five points to which he was entitled on account of military 
service, gave him a rating of 72.80 and made him eligible for appoint- 
ment. Although the other candidate, George J. Dykes, attained a 
rating of 82, the President exercised his power of selection and desig- 
nated Mr. Bishop for the place. The commission having reviewed 
the case in the light of the time Mr. Bishop was in the war, his ex- 
perience otherwise, and his college education was in the opinion of the 
committee warranted in giving him eligible rating. There is nothing 
on which to found a belief that the commission was improperly in- 
fluenced. 

St. Petersburg, Fla. (pp. 72, 187) : Charge similar to that in the 
Eustis case, namely, that it was the purpose of the Republican organi- 
zation to have Mr, Hanna nominated to be postmaster at St. Peters- 
burg, and that it was apparent that influence was brought to bear on 
the commission in order that he might be certified as eligible for ap- 
pointment. 



12 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION., 

Examination was held August 9, 1921, under which William L. 
Straub received a rating of 76.80 and Henry L. Ermatinger received 
70.40. The papers of Roy S. Hanna, as appears from the letter of 
Mr. John H. Bartlett, president of the commission, to Senator 
Fletcher, of date December 17 last, were not given a numerical rating, 
because it did not appear that his name could properly be placed 
among those from whom selection must be made under the Executive 
order of May 10, 1921. For a detailed statement of the facts showing 
how Mr. Hanna came to receive an eligible rating the committee here 
sets forth in full the letter from President Bartlett, of the commis- 
sion, to Senator Fletcher, of date January 12 last: 

United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, January 12, 1922. 
Hon. Duncan U. Fletcher, 

United States Senate. 

My Dear Senator Fletcher : We beg to refer to the matter of the examination 
for postmaster at St. Petersburg, Fla. This examination was handled identi- 
cally as all our examinations are handled, and when it was presented to the com- 
mission attention was particularly invited to the case of Mr. Roy S. Hanna and 
to a post-office inspector's report under date of May 24, 1916, regarding Mr. 
Hanna's administration of the post office. Mr. Hanna's case was submitted to 
the commission for decision as to whether or not the charge in the post-office 
inspector's report that Mr. Hanna did not devote the required amount of time 
to the duties of his office was sufficient to disqualify him in this examination. 
The following is the action of the commission as indorsed on the case at the 
time of its submission and consideration : 

" As to Hanna, if I understand it correctly, the finding herein is that he 
would easily be eligible were it not for the fact of his resignation after the 
report of the post-office inspectors in 1916. I do not find any charge in the, 
excerpt from the report of the inspectors that would tend to show disqualifica- 
tion, especially as the adverse recommendation seems to be based on the 
alleged fact that Mr. Hanna was absent from the office too much. It is matter 
of common knowledge that back in the years during his postmastership it 
was very rare for any postmaster, especially of an office approaching this size, 
to put in anything like seven hours a day. I do not think that the facts showa 
herein from the report of inspectors are at all sufficient to disqualify him." 

In the reference of the case the chief of the examining division had ex- 
pressed the opinion that in the light of the record of Mr. Hanna, he was not 
able to recommend eligibility for him. When the case had been acted upon, 
by the commission, as above stated, and came to be written up by one of the 
clerks who does that part of the work, through purely clerical oversight the 
indorsement of the commission as to Hanna was overlooked, with the result 
that Mr. Hanna's name did not appear on the list of eligibles. In this shape 
the case went as far as the division of appointments in this office, in which 
division the letter of December 17, 1921, was written to you, stating that the 
papers of Roy S. Hanna were not given a numerical rating because it did not 
appear that his name could properly be placed among those from whom selec- 
tion must be made under Executive order of May 10, 1921, and giving the 
names of William L. Straub and Henry L. Ermatinger as the two candidates 
who had been found eligible. 

This letter to you of December 17, 1921, was written in the division of ap- 
pointments of this office, under a misapprehension of the facts due to the 
clerical error made in the examining division in writing up the ease, as above 
set forth. The case, as thus erroneously written, was even sent to the depart- 
ment, but the chief of the examining division, in checking it, caught the clerical 
error and at once telephoned the department where it had .iust a few minutes 
before arrived, had it sent back, and had the original finding of the commis^ 
sion carried out. 

This letter is for the purpose of putting you in possession of all the facts 
in the case. 

By direction of the commission. 
Very respectfully, 

John H. Bartlett, President. 



IlSrVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 13 

While the mistake made in regard to Mr. Hanna's rating is re- 
grettable, the committee does not believe that there was error in 
finally giving him an eligible rating, or that under the showing made 
the motives of the commission can be impugned. 

Gardner, Mass. (pp. 158-160) : This is a case where a rival can- 
didate, Arthur G. Mason, charges that he should have been given 
a higher rating than George L. Minott, and that he would have been 
if an honest rating had been given the papers. The result of the 
examination was : George I. Minott, 88.(^0 ; Arthur G. Mason, 83 ; 
and Richard T. Smart, 73.60. The memorandum in this case makes 
interesting reading, and your committee believes that Mr. Mason's 
indiscretions were such as to warrant the commission in giving him 
a much lower rating, if not to warrant them in keeping him off the 
eligible list entirely. 

Beaver, Okla. (p. 167) : At the time of filing its memorandum in 
this case, April 19, 1922, the report of the investigators had not been 
received and no ratings had been made. The question is as to 
whether one of the candidates, who is said to have removed from 
Beaver after the examination, would be eliminated and another ap- 
pointed. The commission said, " The residence of the candidate said 
to have removed from Beaver will be one of the matters brought out 
in the personal investigation." 

Soddy, Tenn. (p. 146) : Three names, as a result of the examina- 
tion, were certified to the President : Luther M. Eoberts, with mili- 
tary preference right, 86,13 ; Thomas J. Welch, 81.60 ; Homer A. 
Newman, with preference right, 76.33. The charge made by Mr. 
Roberts that he had found in the mail boxes of rural-route patrons 
of Soddy circulars advertising a sale of merchandise of Welch's 
store, such circulars not bearing any postage, the commission held 
did not relate to anything within the jurisdiction of the commission. 
There is nothing to show that the matter was brought to the atten- 
tion of the commission prior to the certification. 

Peabody, Mass. (p. 168) : Charged by the present incumbent and 
a rival candidate that William F. Searle, being eligible No. 1 in the 
examination, was not a resident of Peabody. We think the commis- 
sion was fully justified in finding that the charge was not sustained. 

Decatur, Ark. (pp. 164, 165) : Charged that the certification of 
eligibles issued by the commission contained as the highest three 
only Democrats, and that the Post Office Department appointed an 
acting postmaster who was not one of these three. 

The examination held July 9, 1921, gave five eligibles, with Fred- 
erick M. Priestly as the highest on the list, with a rating of 87.80, and 
Thomas T. Priestly, 77.80. In that examination Thomas T. Priestly 
was marked " Preference due to military service." The commission 
explains that until the Executive order of October 14, 1921, was 
issued, granting a five-point bonus to the veterans of the World 
War in connection with examinations taken by them for presidential 
postmaster, the commission followed the practice of placing first 
on the certification of eligibles the names of eligibles who could be 
accorded military preference in the classified service regardless of 
the rating obtained by them in the examination, and followed their 
names with the names of civilian eligibles. Miss Addie Gilbert was 
nominated in October, 1921. The commission states that Miss Addie 



14 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION^ 

Gilbert, being eligible No. 3, was nominated in October, 1921, " but 
that the Senate has not yet confirmed her appointment; and that^. 
effective March 1, 1922, the Post Office Department exercised its 
right, pending action by the Senate, of appointing an acting post- 
master at Decatur, the term of the incumbent postmaster at Decatur 
having expired some time before," and it is the department, not 
the commission," that made Miss Gilbert the acting postmaster. We 
see nothing irregular in the procedure of the commission in regard to 
this office. 

Dayton, Ohio (p. 92) : It is evident that a great deal of publicity 
has been given to this case, and the suggestion, if not the direct 
charge made, that the commission were improperly influenced in the 
designation of Dr. Linden C. Weimer as one of the first three 
eligibles. 

There were 12 applicants for the position. The case was of such 
importance that the chief of the division of investigation and review 
of the Civil Service Commission, and the post-office inspector in. 
charge of the Philadelphia, Pa., division, were assigned to make in- 
vestigation. According to the memorandum of the commission, 35 
representative citizens were interviewed and a report "of 158 pages 
of single-space typewriting was submitted to the commission in Sep- 
tember, 1921." The memorandum sets forth in full the procedure 
followed, and gives the reasons therefor. As a result of the examina- 
tion and of the investigations made, the three eligibles were given 
ratings as follows: Forest L. May, 82.20; John E. Flotron, 81.20;- 
Linden C. Weimer, 80. Quoting from the memorandum, the commis- 
sion says : 

In the rating of an examination for presidential postmaster it is necessary,, 
of course, to weigh one candidate against another. It is not always an easy 
task to do this on the evidence presented in a case ; but it seemed to the com- 
mission after going over all the evidence before it concerning all the candi- 
dates that Messrs. May, Flotron, and Weimer were the highest three entitled 
to eligible ratings, and therefore for consideration for appointment as post- 
master. 

For the reason that newspaper propaganda had been carried on 
against Doctor Weimer and against the Civil Service Commission 
for rating Doctor Weimer among the highest three eligibles, the 
commission goes into detail concerning Doctor Weimer's training" 
and experience. Your committee is of the opinion that no one can 
read this statement without being convinced that Doctor Weimer, 
on account of his business training and experience, the positions of 
trust and confidence which he has held, and the executive ability he 
has shown in these several positions, is an exceptionally trustworthy 
and able man. One witness, a trustee of the United Brethren Pub- 
lishing Co., states : 

I know nothing of Doctor Weimer's ability as a dentist, but I do know that he- 
has a keen business mind, and I wish to testify as to his administrative and 
executive ability, which he possesses to a very high degree. I make this state- 
ment because of my own personal knowledge gained by actual association.. 
There is no question in my mind but that he is fully competent and able to 
assume the duties of postmaster should he be appointed to this responsible- 
position. 

Out of the 35 business men and representative citizens interviewed 
there was a total of 24 who, according to the commission's report, 
believed Doctor Weimer was qualified to be one of the three candi- 
dates eligible for certification to the Post Office Department. 



INVESTIGATIOE" EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 15 

Your committee has not in this case confined itself to the memo- 
randnm furnished by the commission, but has examined the reports of 
the inspectors, which were furnished the commission without recom- 
mendation or comment of any kind upon the part of the inspectors. 
In addition to the inquiries and answers thereto concerning individual 
candidates, the inspectors ask the citizens of whom inquiry had been 
made for their best judgment in regard to the comparative fitness of 
the several candidates, and it is worthy of note that the inquiries were 
evidently made of men of the highest standing, such as presidents of 
banks and the heads of prominent business establishments and pro- 
fessional men. Many of them give Doctor Weimer first place. The 
great majority give him a place among the highest three. A few say 
it is difficult to determine which among three or four or five would be 
the best man for the place. Nearly all speak in high terms of the ad- 
ministration of the office by Mr. May, and it is evident to your com- 
mittee that the opinions of these leading citizens were entertained 
and expressed without political bias or influence. 

Concerning Doctor Miller, who apparently has fine scholastic at- 
tainments, the opinion was expressed by men apparently in a position 
to know, that he would not be a good postmaster, and the impression 
is conveyed that he is wanting in initiative and executive ability. He 
had been superintendent of schools of Dayton, but the board of educa- 
tion were unanimous in electing another man to succeed him. 

As to Mr. Ohmer, while all the statements agree that he is a 
fine young fellow, yet they are for the most part toi the effect that 
he is young, but recently out of college, and either has no executive ■- 
ability or has not had experience sufficient to acquire it. 

Your committee can not agree with the suggestion that certifi- 
cation of eligibles for this appointment was held up in oi'der to 
give time for Doctor Weimer to qualify. It is to be regretted that 
the matter was not earlier disposed of, but the contest was evidently 
a sharp and, in some respects, a bitter one, and the commission was 
justified in taking time and in weighing carefully the claims of 
the several candidates. But, as the commission says, if it " had 
already determined that Doctor Weimer was to be one of the highest 
ihn^e eligibles. the element of time could have no weight in the 
decision." The vacancy in this office was reported on or soon after 
July 22, 1921, and the commission announced the closing date for 
applications as August 8. No business or post-office experience ac- 
quired after that date could have been taken into account, and the 
limited experience acquired by Doctor Weimer between the time 
he took possession as acting postmaster and August 9 was not 
worthy of consideration. 

On December 14, 1921, the examining board certified to the com- 
mission, as follows : 

The Commission :. 

We have vei-y carefully and painstakingly considered the Dayton, Ohio, 
postmaster examination papers from every angle, and recommend the following : ; 

1. Forrest L. May, 82.20. 

2. .Tohn R. Flotron, 81.20. 

3. Linden C. Weimer, SO. 

4. Robert E. Ohmer, not among three highest after bonus is added. 

5. Frank W. Miller, not among three highest. 



16 INVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMHSTING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

The following are in our opinion not entitled to eligible ratings : Charles W. 
Noggle, Bert E. Buckley, Harold E. Smock, Frank W. Sheller, Paul H. Ochil- 
tree. 

J. G. Yaden. 

K. C. ViPOND. 
H. A. FiLEE. 

The regular appointment of Doctor Weimer followed this cer- 
tification. 

A complaint was made before the committee of the summary way 
in which Mr. May on the expiration of his term was required to 
surrender the office and Doctor Weimer installed therein as acting 
postmaster. It may have been that the proceedings in this respect 
were very abrupt and \Yithout regard to rules of courtesy or the 
dignity of the position and the service which had been rendered by 
Mr. May. The committee is inclined to believe that there was un- 
necessary haste and abruptness in taking possession of the office, yet 
this- was something wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Civil 
Service Commission and with which the commission in the nature of 
things could have had nothing to do. Your committee, in the face of 
the very open and full statement contained in the memorandum and 
on examination of the reports of the men who conducted the personal 
investigation, can not find that the commission was at fault in any of 
the methods employed in the examination or rating of the candidates. 

Troy, Ohio (pp. 134—138) : Charged that persons well qualified to 
fill the postmastership at this place were " arbitrarily denied eligi- 
bility " by the Civil Service Commission ; also charged by Frank M. 
Sterrett, candidate for the position, that he was denied participation 
in the examination on account of his age, whereas he clairiis that 
as a veteran of the Civil War he was entitled to a waiver of age 
limitation. 

The examination resulted as follows: Harry B. Carver, average 
fating of 88.80 ; John L. Babb (with 5 points military preference) , 
75.80. The papers of a number of other candidates were not given 
numerical ratings, because it did not appear that their names could 
be properly placed among those from whom selection must be made 
under the Executive order. The commission notes that the applica- 
tion of Lewis E. St. John had been withdrawn by request of the 
candidate and that the application of Frank _M. Sterrett had been 
canceled because he was over age. 

We refer to the memorandum of the commission, in which the 
qualifications of the several candidates as shown by the examination 
and by investigations made are fully set forth. It is not seen how 
there can be any just criticism of the action of the commission in 
this case. A¥hile the examination for postmaster for Troy was pend- 
ing the Executive order of October 14, 1921, was issued. Under 
that order waivers of age limitations were limited to veterans of 
the World AVar. The Troy case not having come up for considera- 
tion before the commission on the date of the Executive order, it 
was necessary to reject this application, and Mr. Sterrett, it appears, 
was notified by the Postmaster General of the circumstances which 
required such cancellation. 

JSTatick, Mass. (pp. 160-162) : Charged by K E. Pulsifer, being 
one of the candidates and also editor of the Natick Tribune, of dis- 
crimination ag-ainst him in the consideration of answers to the con- 



INVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 17 

iidential questionnaires sent out to the business men of Natick for a 
report on the qualifications of the several candidates, of whom there 
^/vere eight. The highest three eligibles were : Joseph A. Mahan, with 
an average rating of 82.20 ; Joseph H. Pratt, 80.40 ; and Llewellyn E, 
Pulsifer, 77.20. The commission sets forth quite fully the facts con- 
<;erning the answers to the various questions submitted to citizens and 
business men of the community. It is believed by your committee 
that Candidate Pulsifer's rating was, under all the circumstances, as 
high as he deserved. 

Plainview, Ark. (p. 100) : Charge unfair methods in the establish- 
ment of eligibility for postmastership at Plainview, with statement 
that " it is rumored that the nominee paid the committeeman $200 for 
favorable recommendation." Mr. Green, the complainant, was given 
the highest rating, 83.70. Benjamin E. Smith received 82.50 and 
Burton C. Willard 78.60. Mr. Green has no complaint against the 
Civil Service Commission. See statement in memorandum of com- 
mission relative to the suggestion that the nominee paid the com- 
mitteeman for a favorable recommendation. This, if true, is some- 
thing of which the commission evidently had no knowledge. 

Emmett, Ark. (p. 101) : Charge of nonresidence of Mr. L. N. 
White, who is an applicant for postmaster. Mr. White had the 
highest rating of six applicants for the place. He was entitled to 
5 points for military service, and his rating was 83.20. He was nom- 
inated. Mr. White had made a sworn statement in which he said 
that his home had been " within the delivery of that office since No- 
vember, 1917." None of the persons to whom confidential questions 
were addressed challenged the residential qualifications of Mr. White. 
We do not see how the commission could have found otherwise than 
that he was qualified so far as residence is concerned. 

Alma, Ark. (p. 107) : Charged that the party recommended was not 
qualified to pass the examination held December 10, 1921, and that 
^' leading business men of Alma have said he was not qualified." As 
a result of the examination there were five eligibles, of whom Mr. 
Thomas L. Lansdell, the complainant, received the lowest rating of 
71.80. The committee calls attention to the fact that " the commis- 
sion's files contain no suggestion of a charge or complaint against 
any of the candidates for the Alma post office," and that a review of 
the case discloses the fact that each of the three highest candidates, 
all of whom are now eligible for appointment, made a creditable 
showing in the written examination, doing better than any of their 
fellow competitors. At the time of the filing of the memorandum 
by the commission no nomination had been made for this office, and 
the commission evidently did not know who would be recommended, 

Sheridan, Ark, (p. 99) : Charge of the nonresidence of Mr. W. O. 
Eoberts, one of the applicants for postmaster. Two candidates, 
Eobert N, Clark, who received a rating of 75.80, and William O. 
Roberts, a rating of 74.80. Mr. Eoberts was nominated on January 
30, 1922. The memorandum of the commission is quite complete on 
the question of residence and your committee believe that the finding 
of the commission on that question is fully supported. 

Hackett, Ark. (p. 99) : Charged by Mrs. Maude Upchurch, one of 
the applicants, that on the examination of July 9, 1921, she obtained 

• S. Rept. 836, 67-2 2 



18 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

a rating of 90.20, but that no appointment was made and a new ex- 
amination was ordered. The case at Hackett is compared with the 
case at Midland, in which latter case there was but one eligible appli- 
cant and instead of announcing a new examination for Midland the 
sole applicant was appointed postmaster, because, as alleged, he had 
been recommended by a political convention. The inquiry is, Why 
was not the same course followed at Hackett ? 

The commission explain by saying that the Executive order of May 
10, 1921, by its terms provides that the Postmaster General shall make 
certification to the President from a list comprised of the highest 
three eligibles in any examination and that the Postmaster General 
may, if he so desires, require a certification to him of three candi- 
dates from which to make selection; and that it was presumed that 
the examination at Hackett did not provide the Postmaster General 
with a satisfactory choice and that he therefore requested the Civil 
Service Commission, under date of December 13, 1921, to announce 
a new examination. This was done. A second examination was 
held, with the result that Mrs. Upchurch stood second on the eligible 
list. 

The committee finds no fault with the action of the commission. 

Yellville, Ark. (p. 102) : Charge made by applicant, John H. 
Thompson, that another applicant, Howell A. Burnes, had not been a 
resident of Yellville for the required time. Mr. Burnes's application 
had been canceled pending the establishment of bona fide residence. 
Upon investigation and on affidavit of Mr. Burnes the commission 
reinstated his application, and in the judgment of the committee this 
action was justified. 

Atkins, Ark. (p. 103) : Charge that James H. Johnson, nominated 
for the place, charged an ex-service man excessive fees for legal labors 
in connection with the draft. The memorandum of the commission 
shows that 28 persons of whom inquiry was made are " practically 
unanimous that Johnson is a man of good moral character, habits, 
loyalt}^, reputation, etc." The commission did not feel called upon to 
investigate the question as to whether any excessive legal fee had been 
charged. It is believed that a perusal of the memorandum of the com- 
mission will satisfy any imjoartial person that the attitude of the 
commission in this regard was the correct one. 

Delight, Ark. (p. 104) : Charge that Edwin C. Widener, who was 
nominated for this office, was not " qualified to pass on any subject 
and that his examination papers will show this." There were three 
eligibles, in order as follows : H. W. Guise, B. F. Presley, and Edwin 
C. Widener. The memorandum gives in detail the several businesses 
and employments in which Mr. Widener had been engaged for a 
period of 20 years. None of the answers to confidential inquiries 
made of leading business men and citizens indicated that Mr. Widener 
was not a suitable man for the position of postmaster. This post 
offi-ce pays a salary of $1,200. On the showing made the committee 
agrees that the commission was justified in making Mr. Widener one 
of the eligibles. 

McCrory, Ark. (p. 120) : But one applicant, Edward L. Hamilton. 
Charge is that, failing in his written examination, he was arbitrarily 
made eligible by a high rating on business experience and fitness. Mr. 
Hamilton was nominated. The commission reached the conclusion 



INVESTIGATIOiSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 19 

from the examination and from the confidential inquiries that Mr. 
Hamilton was qualified for the place, the office pa^ying a salary of 
$1,700. No other applicant was wronged by his appointment, and it 
is strange that the case should be made the subject of inquiry. 

Texarkana, Ark. (p. 123)^: Charge that E'. E. Hudspeth, one of 
the api^licants, had been convicted of a serious crime. 

Of the three eligibles certified Mr. Hudspeth received the lowest 
rating, 70.40. William A. Smith received a rating of 88.40, and 
Martin D. Tilson 78.20. In answer to one of the examination, 
questions, Mr. Hudspeth stated that he had been convicted of a 
crime, and attached a copy of the court record covering his trial 
and conviction. The court record showed that in 1907 he had been 
indicted by the grand jury of Pike County, Ark., and on trial was 
convicted of aggravated assault. The commission refers to a state- 
ment contained in its files bearing the signature of the circuit judge 
before whom Mr. Hudspeth was tried, in which the writer asserts 
that although Mr. Hudspeth was convicted before a jury, he, the 
judge, then thought, and is still of the opinion, that Mr. Hudspeth 
very probably acted in self-defense in committing the assault for 
which he was tried. Mr. Hudspeth was afterwards pardoned, the 
pardon having been obtained, according to a statement of the former 
Acting Governor of Arkansas who issued it, through the earnest 
solicitation of about 90 per cent of the citizens of Howard County, 
Ark., and only after he had personally investigated all the facts; 
that he had always felt that Mr. Hudspeth's conviction resulted 
from a miscarriage of justice,. etc. 

On a review of this case, the committee are in accord with the 
conclusion reached by the commission, and deplore the fact that 
under the circumstances, which could have been easily ascertained, 
it should have been made the subject of inquiry by a special com- 
mittee of 'the Senate. 

We think it will be agreed that the same observation could justly 
be made relative to many other cases. 

Fulton, Ark. (p. 126) : This is also a case of assault. The charge 
is made that Rosse G. Roberts should not be considered for appoint- 
ment because he failed to refer in his application to having paid a 
small fine for assault. The charge is made by one of the rival 
candidates. The memorandum shows how utterly ridiculous the 
charge Avas as a basis for rejecting Mr. Roberts's application for the 
place. 

Rogers, Ark. (p. 97) : Charge of disloyalty against Mr. G. B. Cady, 
the newly appointed postmaster at Rogers. The commission finds 
that there was no foundation for the charge, and that only 1 out 
of 24 representative citizens of the town of Rogers to whom in- 
quiries were addressed even hinted that Mr. Cady and his family 
" were not considered very loyal." The commission simply exhibited 
g'oocl judgment in disregarding the charge. 

Terry, Ark. (pp. 128-130) : Charge by John L. Hill, of Perry, 
that applicant, J. L. McLaughlin, having failed in the examination, 
was rendered eligible for appointment by reason of irregular action 
on the part of the Civil Service Commission. 

It would appear that the rating first given Mr. McLaughlin on 
business training and experience was 85. The commission, in its 



20 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SEEVICE COMMISSION. 

memorandum, set forth verbatim the statements in the applications 
of both Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Virgil I. Cragar in regard to educa- 
tion and business experience. The commission were not satisfied 
with the testimony on which the examiners rated the applicants in 
the first instance and a further investigation of the case was made. 
We quote the last paragraph of the statement of the commission : 

Questionnaires were accordingly addressed to a variety of responsible con- 
cerns of Perry with the result that a gratifying number were promptly re- 
turned. An examination of the more complete testimony thoroughly estab- 
lished the wisdom of further inquiry. The tone of the newly developed testi- 
mony showed a pronounced improvement in its estimate of Mr. McLaughlin's 
fitness. The case was again examined in the light of this later information, 
and upon the basis thereof this applicant's rating on the subject of business 
training and experience was raised to 85. A present reconsideration of the 
Whole case discloses no inconsistency in this latter rating, and it is felt that 
Applicant McLaughlin has been accorded no more liberal a rating than the 
tecord justifies. 

Under the circumstances the committee believe that the finding on 
further investigation made by the commission was fully justified and 
there is no evidence of irregular action on the part of the commission. 

Kewanna, Ind. (p. 98) : Charge fraudulent practice and favor- 
itism in the establishment of eligibility of Charles J. Sparks. It 
appears from the statement of the commission that after the exami- 
nation of candidates for this office it was found that the blank (Form 
-No. 3) on which the candidate was required to set out in detail his 
experience, training, education, etc., was missing from the files. 
Nevertheless, taking into account the showing made in his applica- 
tion, the examiners thought he might be equitably rated at 75 in 
business training and experience. With this rating his average was 
80.70, being the lowest of five applicants who took the examination. 
The commission concluded that it was but just that Mr. Sparks 
should have an opportunity with others to set forth his* business 
training and experience in the usual way, and he was permitted to 
do so, with the result that he received a new rating of 88 in business 
training and experience, the case having meanwhile been recalled 
from the department and submitted again to the board of examiners. 
In the new ratings Mr. Sparks stood second with an average of 87.20. 

We think the showing made by the commission in this case com- 
pletely refutes the charge of fraudulent practice and favoritism 
and shows that the reconsideration of the case was simply in the 
interests of justice to an applicant who, when opportunity was af- 
forded, showed himself exceptionally well qualified for the position. 

Lagrange, Ind. (p. 131.) : This is simply a case where it is alleged 
that the postmaster had been unjustly removed and a former assist- 
ant postmaster improperly reinstated. Of course, it is understood 
that with removals the Civil Service Commission has nothing to do. 
The commission shows that while having certain specified jurisdic- 
tion in reinstatement cases it has no information as to the name 
of the assistant postmaster, who, it is stated, is being improperly 
reinstated. The complaint certainly shows no improper method or 
practice on the part of the commission. 

New Market, Va. (p. 110) : An anonymous letter, suggesting that 
an investigation be made of the circumstances attending the ap- 
pointment of a presidential postmaster at New Market. The letter 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 21 

being anonymous, a proper course avouIcI have been to disregard it; 
but it was submitted to the commission and the statement of the 
commission shows that on the request of the Post Office Department 
the order for a competitive examination was canceled ; and that upon 
the request of the Postmaster General the commission consulted the 
records with a view to determining the eligibility of Mr. C. W. 
Wickes for the place without such an examination. It was found 
that Mr. Wickes was within the competitive classified civil service 
and eligible under the provisions of the President's Executive order 
of May 10, 1921, for appointment. 

Palestine, 111. (p. 125) : Charge that Mr. Elmer C. Nethery, the 
man selected, was the least qualified for the position of postmaster, 
and that for political reasons he was arbitrarily placed among the 
highest three eligibles. • The complainant in this case is one of the 
vouchers for Zelora J. Cawood, the third eligible. The memo- 
randum of the commission in regard to this examination and rating 
is quite complete, and it is the judgment of the committee that Mr, 
Nethery was rightly given second place in the list of eligibles; and 
that the rating given him was not due to j^olitical reasons. 

Le Roy, 111. (p. 103) : Question of residence, it being alleged by 
Josephine K. Beckham, one of the applicants, that Edward F. Sar- 
gent, who received third place and to whose rating was added a 
points for military service, giving him a rating of 79.40, was not 
a resident within the delivery of the Le Roy post office. The ques- 
tion seems to have been gone into quite fuUy by the commission, 
with the resulting decision that Mr. Sargent was a resident. Your 
committee believe that the decision of the commission was right. 

Marked Tree, Ark. (p. 60) : Another case where residence of the 
appointee was questioned. The commission says, and the memo- 
randum itself shows, that " very careful and detailed inquiry " was 
made concerning the residence of Mrs. Stark. An impartial con- 
sideration of the evidence, as summarized by the commission, will, 
we think, convince any reasonable person that the commission was 
right in holding that Mrs. Stark's actual and bona fide residence was 
at Marked Tree. 

Cedar Springs, Mich. (p. 62) : Mr. Glen B[. Doyle, who, by the aid 
of 5 points on account of military service, received a rating of 83.28, 
was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. He 
was born at Cedar Springs, which was his home continuously until 
his enlistment in the Army. He owns his home and was temporarily 
absent for the purpose of obtaining work. He returned every two 
or three weeks to his home in Cedar Springs, where he received a 
portion of his mail. His home Avas not occupied by any persion 
during the period of his employment at Muskegon. He returned 
permanently to Cedar Springs in June, 1921. The commission 
could hardly have decided otherwise than that Cedar Springs was 
the actual home of the appointee. 

V Southwest City, Mo. (p. 62) : Complaint by William F. Steven- 
son, postmaster, that Clarence B. Robinson was appointed post- 
master without having qualified in an examination held for that 
purpose. Mr. Robinson had been a classified rural carrier for 15 
years and his appointment was by way of promotion under regula-^ 



22 IISrVESTIGATION' EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

tions made for the purpose of carryino- out the Executive order of 
May 10, 1921. The regulations are as follows : 

Any person who has held a position in the classified service for at least three 
years, resiilting from a first-grade clerk, clerk-carrier, or equivalent examina- 
tion, may be promoted to the position of tliird-class postmaster without further 
examination. It is understood, of course, that the commission may inquire into 
the suitability of such candidate. 

The commission advised the Post Office Department that Mr. 
Robinson met the minimum requirements for the position of post- 
master at Southwest City. Post office paid $1,600, and Mr. Robin- 
son's annual salary as rural carrier amounted to $1,755. 

Elizabeth, W. Va. (p. 73) : At the time of tl;e memorandum in 
this case no ratings had been made. The information received hj the 
commission included charges. The commission therefore ordered 
personal investigation. At the date of the filing of the memorandum 
with the committee the report of the investigation had not been 
received. 

Avon-by-the-Sea, N. J. (p. 68) : The complaint in this case, if it 
can be called a complaint, is that a second examination was ordered 
canceled, and the first ratings were revised, giving the appointee a 
rating sufficient to pass. 

There were two candidates, Mr. William C. Snyder, who received 
an average of 73.08, and LeRoy Sofield, who received an average of 
68.25. However, Mr. Snyder's rating in arithmetic was only 51.25, 
although he had been postmaster for several years. The result having 
been sent to the Post Office Department and that department having 
the right to require three eligibles, the Postmaster General requested 
a second examination. Meanwhile, Mr. Sofield, not satisfied with his 
rating in "business training, experience, and fitness," appealed from 
the form.er rating. The papers were reviewed by the reviewing board 
of examiners, with the result, as stated by the commission, that Mr. 
Snyder's experience rating was lifted to 93 per cent and his general 
average to 76.08 ; and Mr. Sofield's experience rating was lifted to 80 
and his average to 73.75. The department then determined that it 
could make selection from the two eligibles and asked the commission 
to cancel the proposed second examination which had been scheduled 
for January 14, 1922. 

We see nothing in this case with which to charge the commission. 
The commission set forth the business training and experience of Mr. 
Sofield, the appointee, which we think shows that in this respect he 
is well qualified for the place. 

Haverhill, Mass. (pp. 56-59) : Here it was charged there had been 
three examinations for postmaster at Haverhill. The commission 
point out that under the Executive order of May 10, 1921, there has 
been but one examination. There had been an examination for post- 
master under the Executive order of March 31, 1917, but the com- /^J] 
mission felt it to be its duty to have a new examination under the -* 
order of May 10, 1921, and say, "this situation was not peculiar to 
Haverhill ; there were several sucli cases in the United States." TlK 
commission points out the somewhat different standards under the 
two Executive orders. Under the examination held under the order 
of May 10, 1921, three names were certified: Clarence B. Le Gagy, 
with a rating of 82.20 ; William H. Johnson, with a rating of 79.20 ; 



INVESTIGATTOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 23 

and George F. McNamara, with a rating of 74.40. After this certifi- 
cation one of the candidates appealed from the decision of the com- 
mission on the ground that he had not been given sufficient credit for 
the business in which he was engaged and for the executive ability he 
had shown. After due consideration the case was reopened for the 
purpose of allowing, not a new examination, but a reinvestigation; 
and as a result of this reinvestigation by investigators who personally 
visited Haverhill and conferred with both Mr. Babcock and Mr, 
McNamara and with the citizens of Haverhill, Mr. Babcock was given 
third place among the eligibles instead of Mr. McNamara. The com- 
n)ittee suggests a careful perusal of the memorandum of the commis- 
sion. 

Your committee is of the opinion that the commission in its pro- 
ceedings in this case acted in entire good faith with a desire to do 
justice both to the applicants and to the Government, and that the 
conclusions reached in their ratings were without regard to any po- 
litical bias or influence. 

Macy, Ind. (p. 148) : Six candidates for this office. Examination 
held September 24, 1921 ; but complaint having been made that the 
correspondence relating to business training, experience, and fitness 
did not reveal sufficient accurate information as to the personal char- 
acteristics and abilities of the several candidates the commission at 
the date of filing its memorandum with the committee had recalled 
the papers from the Post Office Department and directed one of its 
examiners to make personal inquiry at Macy. The report of the ex- 
aminers had not at the time of filing the memorandum been received. 

Rochester, N. Y. (p. 139) : Charge by Mr. James V. Burke that 
the appointment of John B. Mullan " is the greatest farce known 
in regard to postmaster examinations." Request is made that an- 
other examination be held. 

Mr. Mullan, the acting postmaster, was the only applicant who, 
according to the report of the commission, received a general aver- 
age of 75 per cent, and on February 17 the commission certified his 
name to the Post Office Department. Confidential questionnaires 
were sent to a number of business men of Rochester and the memo- 
randum of the commission sets forth quite fully the replies received. 
The commission conclude its review of the correspondence with the 
f ollov\^ing : 

The statements above quoted indicate tlie liighest possible regard for Mr. 
Mullan for a $6,000 postmastership and clearly show the high esteena in which 
he is held by the leading and representative business men and citizens of 
Rochester, who are personally concerned in the efficient administration of the 
local post office. 

The examination of candidates for this office was given wide 

V, publicit3^ 

w ■ , We think it apparent that there is no foundation for the charge 
m^de by Mr- Burke. 

Gurdon, Ark. (pp. 149-151) : Claimed by C. R. Marsh, applicant 
for postmaster, that he and two other Democrats, William H. 
Atkins and Walter C. Wilson, should have been rated higher than 
either H. E. Olmsted, Fred H. Price, or J. W. Green, Republican 
candidates, and that ihe. placing of Mr. Price among the three 
highest eligibles was the result of false rating. 



24 INVESTIGATION EXAMHSTING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

Mr. Price has an average of 83.30, with preference of five points, 
for military service. Mr. Atkins was rated third, with an average 
of T6.10; Mr. Wilson was the fifth, with an average of 73.40, five 
points of which are due to military service. Because of the nature 
of the charge, the commission sets forth in detail the record of 
Messrs. Price, Marsh, Atkins, and Wilson, with the offer to submit 
to the committee the examination papers of the different candidates 
for inspection of the work done by them in the written tests. Under 
the circumstances the committee did not deem it necessary to call 
for these papers, but believe from an inspection of the abstract of 
the record furnished by the commission and the statements made in_ 
connection therewith that the commission was fully justified in the 
ratings of these four candidates. Mr. Price was nominated by th& 
President for appointment on March 18, 1922. 

Bayonne, N. J. (pp. 179-181) : Complaint by Theodore Roose- 
velt Nellis that Mr. Charles PI. Conner, one of the candidates, did 
not have sufficient education or business qualifications to properly 
administer this office. The office psijs $3,600, and it is said the city 
has a population of 78,000. 

The memorandum of the commission shows that because of the 
size of the office and the salary paid the commission sent two in- 
vestigators to -Bayonne to make inquiry concerning the business ex- 
perience and qualifications of the different candidates, of whom there 
were nine. As a result of the investigation Mr. Conner was placed 
third among the eligibles, and was so certified to the Post Office 
Department, and the department recommended Mr. Conner, The 
commission say : 

After considering Mr. Conner's experience, tlie fact that he has steadily ad- 
vanced in position, and after considering the favorable testimony concerning- 
his qualifications, the commission not only believed that he was eligible for 
the po£:ition of postmaster at Bayonne but. that he stood out from the re- 
maining candidates as entitled to third place on the certification of eligibles. 
The commission having certified him as one of the three eligibles, the right 
of selecting one of these three for considerat.on and confirmation by the Senate 
rests with the Post Office Department and the President. The commission 
understands that Mr. Conner was so selected. 

Corning, Iowa (pp. 165-167) : Charge by A. B. Lewis, rival can- 
didate, of trickery and unfairness in connection with the examina- 
tion and with the rating given him. It appears that on examina- 
tion and on inquiry made of 25 leading and representative business 
men and citizens of Corning that the commission concluded that it 
did not appear that the name of Mr. Lewis could be placed among 
those from whom selection could be made under the Executive order. 
The commission set forth a summary of the evidence in regard to the 
qualifications of the five candidates — Edgar A. Cupp, Edward F. 
Gauthier, Joseph R. Cummings, A. B. Lewis, and R. N. Archie. In 
the opinion of your committee this summary, taken in connection, 
with Mr. Lewis's letter itself, shows that the commission acted 
wisely in not naming Mr. Lewis as one of the highest three eligibles. 

Leslie, Ark. (p. 147) : Charge, that two examinations were held 
for the Leslie office for the reason that the applicant having the in- 
dorsement of the Republican county committee failed to attain an 
eligible rating in the first examination. 

There were two examinations in this case, the first January 12, 
1921, under the former administration. The findings of the com- 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 25 

mission under this examination having been certified to the Post- 
master General it was optional with that official to make an appoint- 
ment from the certificate submitted or to request the commission to 
hold a new examination. The department directed the new examina- 
tion, which was held with the following result : Maude Fowler Hola- 
baugh received an average rating of 82.55 ; John Barnes, 73.05 ; 
Samuel S. Blair, 71.95 ; Fletcher P. Graham, by virtue of five points 
for military service, 71.75 ; Fred W. Hogg, by virtue of five points 
for military service, 70.78. However, before an appointee was se- 
lected the Post Office Department felt it necessary to investigate the 
post office at Leslie. Mr. John Barnes was the then acting postmaster 
who had been certified by the commission as second eligible. Such 
investigation having been held, the Postmaster General requested 
that the name of John Barnes be stricken from the eligible register, 
which, on review of the department's report, was done. Mr. Hogg, 
one of the complaining candidates, received an eligible rating by 
virtue of his military service only. The elminiation of Mr. Barnes 
did not put Mr. Hogg in the third place and hence he was not avail- 
able for appointment under the Executive order. In view of the 
action taken by the present administration in regard to Mr. Barnes, 
the complainants have no ground for the charge that he is scheduled 
for selection as postmaster. We find nothing in the proceedings of 
the Civil Service Commission to criticize in this case. 

Middletown, Ohio (pp 70-71) : Complaint because among the 10 
applicants not one had been able to get ratings and grades and that 
the information received was that there was only one eligible, namelv. 
Roy Clark. . ^ ^ j. 

The commission set forth the reasons why there was but one eligi- 
ble. The application of Mr. Martin was canceled because he was 
under the age of 30 years fixed for that class of post office. 
Five of the remaining ten applicants, although employed in the post 
office, one as money-order clerk and the other four as carriers, had 
not had sufficient supervisory experience to make them eligible for 
the position of postmaster. The statement is made that the salary 
of the post office is $3,400 and that there are more than 30 em- 
ployees. The sixth applicant was employed as " a sheet roller " for 
about 25 years in a sheet-steel mill, but his work was of a nature that 
served in no way to qualify him for the position of postmaster. Of 
the remaining four applicants one, namely, Mr. Pyrle G. Banker, 
made written request that his name be withdrawn from consideration. 
Twenty-eight representative business men were interviewed by in- 
vestigators and as a result of such interview it was found that Charles 
H. Campbell and Philip Menger could not properly be placed on the 
eligible list under the Executive order of May 10, and so no numer- 
ical rating was assigned them. Therefore, as appears from the re- 
port of the commission, the only person having an eligible rating was 
Mr. Roy S. Clark. He received a general average rating of 71.20. 
It appears to the committee that the explanation made by the com- 
mission is sufficient. 

Napoleon, Ohio (pp. 144-146) : Just a charge by W. A. Ritter, a 
rival candidate, that he should have been given a higher rating on 
business experience and fitness than A. E. Augenstein. 

The office is second class, paying a salary of $2,600. Allison E. 
Augenstein received a rating of 84.80, Charles F. Clay 82.60, Warren . 



26 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

A. Eitter 80.80. Five other candidates were not given numerical 
ratings for the reason that it did not appear that their names could 
properly be placed among those from whom selection could be made 
under the Executive order. In this case the commission gave the re- 
sult of the confidential questionnaires sent to a large number of lead- 
ing and representative business men and citizens of Napoleon in the 
interests of all candidates, with general results as follows : Augen- 
stein, 14 good, 6 fair, 4 noncommittal ; Clay, 11 good, 6 fair, 4 non- 
committal, 2 say he is unsuited ; Eitter, 10 good, 7 fair, 3 noncom- 
mittal, 5 unfavorable, who say he is an agitator, cranky, abrupt, un- 
suited. The memorandum further shows that Eitter in his applica- 
tion states he can not hear ordinary conversation in church or lodge, 
and draws a pension for partial deafness. While some of the per- 
sons say his cleafness is slight, others look upon it as serious. 

The committee agrees from the information that the charges of Mr. 
Eitter that he was unfairly rated in comparison with Mr. Augenstein 
are without justification. The same observation will apply In these 
last two as in other cases, that in the opinion of the committee the 
numerical ratings of all candidates should be given. 

San Antonio, Tex. (p. 151) : Complaint is made by H. E. Dickin- 
son, candidate, that persons with business experience and standing 
inferior to his own have been rated above him, with the intimation 
that political considerations influenced the commission in its treat- 
ment of the case. There- were 16 candidates, the highest three being 
Joseph W. Fuller, with an average percentage of 86; Jay H. Peairs, 
with a general average of 71, and who by reason of his military 
preference was entitled to 5 points, giving him a final average of 76 ; 
and Peter G. Lucas, with an average of 75.60. Mr. Lucas was nomi- 
nated and his nomination confirmed. 

The cornmission in its extended memorandum of this case shows 
the education, business training, and experience of each of the highest 
three eligibles in comparison with the educat'on, business training, and 
experience of Mr. Dickinson. After reading the qualifications of 
these four candidates, your committee is of the opinion that the 
commission did not err in not giving Mr. Dickinson a place on the 
eligible list. In any event, it was a case wherein opinions might dif- 
fer. The committee sees no reason for impugning either the methods 
or the motives of the commission in this case. 

Cynthiana, Ky. (p. 157) : It is charged that the Civil Service Com- 
mission was guilty of corrupt practices in qualifying eligibles for the 
position of postmaster at this place and that Orie M. Howard, an ex- 
service man, w^as declared ineligible for postmaster, and a farmer 
with no business experience was selected. 

The commission states that Mr. Howard is not an ex-service man. 
An examination was held, and as a result of the examination and 
confidential inquiries the following candidates were certified : James 

B. Simpson, 80.60; William M. Maffett, with a credit of 5 points 
for military service, 78 ; Samuel L. Sherwood, 77. iEligible No. 1 is 
the present postmaster; eligible No. 2 is the assistant postmaster; 
eligible No. 3 a man of good education and who has been a successful 
merchant for 11 years last past. Concerning Mr. Howard the com- 
mission says that while he had been a clerk in the post office at 
Cynthiana since July, 1903, with a gap of 18 months when he was 



invp^stigatiojst examining division civil service commission. 27 

employed with the Postal Service connected with the United States 
Army in France, this latter service was not in the military service 
and gives him no right to a preference, and that testimony " does not 
indicate that he, Mr. Howard, has had any supervisory experience 
or has held positions where he worked without supervision and on 
his own responsibility. The commission is very definitely of the 
view that he could not be rated as one of the highest three eligibles 
for appointment." This office commands a salary of $2,500. Your 
committee is of the opinion that there is absolutely no foundation 
for the charge of corrupt practices on the part of the commission. 

Condon, Oreg. (p. 133): Charged that , one of the candidates, 
Frank L. Laughrige, had not complied with the requirements as to 
residence within the delivery of the office for two years preceding the 
date of the examination. 

The commission was justified in finding from the answers to the 
confidential inquiries sent out by the commission that Mr. Laugh- 
rige was a resident. The several ratings for this office were : William 
E. Wilkins, 76.40, including the 5 points because of military service ; 
John P. Hess 72.53 ; Frank L. Laughrige 72.10, including 5 points for 
military preference. Mr. Laughrige was appointed February 14, 
1922, and the letter of Mr. Hess of date March 11, 1922, was the 
first information the commission had from Mr. Hess protesting the 
residence of Mr. Laughrige. The examination had been held Sep- 
tember 10, 1921. 

Norwood Station, Pa, (p. 134) : In this case Mrs. N. G. Hazell, 
who was the only person examined, who received a general average 
of 76.95 per cent, and whose name was certified to the Post Office 
Department by the commission, states that she believes the appoint- 
ment is being withheld for political reasons only. Up to the date 
of the filing of the memorandum her nomination had not been re- 
ported, nor had the Post Office Department asked the commission 
to hold another examination. The commission rightly says : " There 
is nothing further that the Civil Service Commission can do at this 
time." 

Marysville, Calif, (p. 134) : Charged by Mr. Thomas F. Fogarty, 
the one of the three eligibles that stood No. 1, that he was not given 
a square deal or consideration for appointment. Mr. Lewis was the 
nominee. The Post Office Department was within its rights in rec- 
ommending for appointment any one of the three persons certified 
to it by the commission, and the commission has no further authority 
in the premises. 

Woodridge, N. Y. (p. 138) : A case in which Mr. Harry Masson, 
who by reason of 5 points for military service was one of two 
eligibles certified by the commission for this office, writes this com- 
mittee requesting the committee to use its influence to secure his 
appointment as postmaster at Woodridge. Of course, this committee 
is not authorizecl to do anything of the kind, and Mr. Masson, having 
been certified as the higher oi the two eligibles, has no complaint 
against the Civil Service Commission. 

Franklin, Ohio (p. 140) : In this case, Catherine Eiley, one of the 
applicants, is dissatisfied with the action of the commission in failing 
to include her name among those certified as eligible. Two ap- 
plicants, namely, Henry E. Libecap and Catherine Riley, are not 



28 INVESTIGATION EXAMIISriNG DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

assigned numerical ratings for the reason that it did not appear 
their names could be placed on the list under the Executive order 
of May 10, 1921. The commission has set out fully the education and 
business experience of the several candidates, that of Miss Riley^ 
included. The three eligibles as found by the commission are r 
Arthur L. McCarthy, with an average of 82; Donald D. Thirkield, 
with an avera;ge of 76.80; and John R, Miller, with a average of 
71.80, including 5 points for military service. Many of the answers 
to inquiries addressed to 20 leading citizens and business men of 
Franklin, either do not mention Miss Riley or state that she is not 
qualified by personality and temperament to serve as postmaster 
at Franklin. It is believed that the commission made no mistake 
in not naming Miss Riley as one of the three eligibles. 

Blackwell, Okla. (p. 75 et seq.) : The only objection to the ap- 
pointment of Mr. T. H. W. McDowell as postmaster at this place 
is made by Hon. Manuel Herrick, a Member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives from that district. Mr. Herrick testified at length before 
the committee. Mr. McDowell is the editor of a paper at Blackwell, 
and Mr. Herrick, as one ground of objection to Mr. McDowell's 
appointment, refers to the dingy, dirty, disorderly, and ill-kept 
print shop run by Mr. McDowell, and also to the fact that Mr. 
McDowell, in printing the Republican ticket, omitted the name of 
Mr. Herrick as a candidate for Congress. Mr. Herrick attributes: 
this to the ignorance of Mr. McDowell. The committee, however, 
is not inclined to share in the belief that Mr. McDowell did not 
know of Mr. Herrick's candidacy. Mr. Herrick's testimony as to 
the proceedings of the commission is vague and unsatisfactory. 
He leaves the impression that the recommendation of Mr. McDowell 
by the Post Office Department, having been sent to the White House, 
the Post Office Department was prevailed upon to withdraw it and 
send it back to the Civil Service Commission. He thinks that the 
commission refused to review the case, and claims that he saw a 
statement at the post office to that effect. He does not remember 
just what the contents of the statement were. He sought to see the 
President in regard to the matter, but failed to do so, partly on ac- 
count of the President's absence from the city, and partly on ac- 
count of Mr. Herrick's illness. Meanwhile, Mr, McDowell's name 
was sent in and the nomination was confirmed. Mr. Herrick sub- 
mits copies of correspondence between Postmaster General Hays 
and Hon. Charles Swindall, former Representative in Congress from 
Oklahoma; also a letter from Mr. J. J. McGraw to Mr. George W. 
Perkins, Assistant Postmaster General. 

The Civil Service Commission in its memorandum on page 86 of 
the hearings sums up Mr. McDowell's qualifications as follows: 

Mr. McDowell is 58 years of age, is a high-school graduate and school- 
teacher, and for many years has been owner, editor, and publisher of a news- 
paper — first in Anthony, Kans., then later as half owner and editor of a weekly 
paper at Blackwell, Okla., of which he became the sole owner in 1911. He 
has held some public positions, and the testimony concerning his ability and 
qualifications is uniformly good. The testimony also is good as to his physical 
condition. He is spoken of as a successful business man, good executive, tactful, 
higli character, agreeable, well qualified to deal with the public. 

Without going into the matter further, your committee is of the 
opinion that there was no irregular practice on the part of the Civil 
Service Commission in this case, and that it conducted the examina- 



INVESTIGATIOISr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 29 

tion and made the ratings and certification in the usual way, George 
M. Carson receiving an average of 88.80; Frank H. Robertson, an 
average, with his military service allowance, of 86.60 ; and Thomas 
H. W. McDowell, 83. That the Post Office Department recom- 
mended and the President appointed Mr. McDowell, the lowest of 
the three eligibles, is altogether apart from the work or duties of 
the Civil Service Commission. 

Clanton, Ala. (p. 144) : Hon. Lamar Jeffers, a Member of the 
House of Representatives from Alabama, appeared and testified 
at length before the committee. His statement, including exhibits, 
is found on pages 113 to 119, inclusive, hearings. Mr. Jeffers does 
3iot complain that wrong has been done by the Civil Service Com- 
mission in the matter of any particular post-office examination or 
appointment, but he cites " the third-class postmastership at Clan- 
ton, Ala.," as a typical case wherein the Civil Service Commis- 
Jiiission gave to the ex-service man taking the examination a _ so- 
called " Certificate of preference." He refers to the fact that this 
certificate of preference states on its face that the candidate's claim 
for preference is allowed, and refers to him as the " preference 
claimant." In answer to the suggestion that the Civil Service Com- 
mission had no authority or direction either under the law or under 
an Executive order to issue any such preference certificate, Mr. 
Jeffers said : 

If I said that, I would be bringing out criticism on the Civil Service Com- 
mission for issuing this certificate of preference, vphich I have no intention of 
doing. I take it that the Civil Service Commission, the President's authorized 
iigency, knew what it was doing when it did this. The fact remains that it did 
■do this. Here is a copy of the certificate as issued : 

certificate of preference. 

United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, June 22, 1921. 

Sir : The following report is made on claim of preference in appointment 
xinder the following statute : 

" Provided, That the act entitled ' An act to provide for the fourteenth and 
subsequent decennial censuses,' approved March 3, 1919, so far as it relates to 
preference in employment of honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and ma- 
rines, be amended to read as follows : ' That hereafter in making appointments 
to clerical and other positions in the executive branch of the Government in 
the District of Columbia or elsewhere, preference shall be given to honorably 
discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines, and widows of such, and to the wives 
of injured soldiers, sailors, and marines who themselves are not qualified but 
"whose wives are qualified to hold such positions.' " (Third deficiency appropria- 
tion act, approved July 11, 1919.) 

Name of applicant, Thomas M. Parrish. 

Examination for which he applied, presidential postmastership, Montgomery, 
July 9, 1921. 

As it is shown by the records that the person named is an honorably dis- 
-charged soldier, the claim is allowed. Failure in examination as well as lack 
of physical qualifications may prevent any benefit under the act. 

Retain this notice and file it with any future application for examination ; 
.otherwise, it will be necessary to again submit verification of military record. 

U. S. Civil Service Commission. 

If the name of the preference claimant as it appears on this notice is not 
identical with the name as it appears on the application for examination, this 
office should be notified immediately. 

Thomas M. Parrish, 

Clanton, Ala. 



30 mVESTTGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SEEVICE COMMISSION. 

The whole contention on the part of Mr. Jeffers is that neither the 
Civil Service Commission in making its certifications nor the Execu- 
tive in making postmaster appointments considered this preference 
certificate thus issued to an ex-service applicant as in any way bind- 
ing. Your committee is of the opinion that the statute quoted in the 
so-called certificate of preference is not applicable, nor was intended 
to be, to postmaster appointments, and this is borne out by the subse- 
quent Executive order of date October 14, 1921, under which the 
Civil Service Commission is directed, " in rating the examination pa- 
pers of such candidates, to add to their earned ratings 5 points and to 
make certification to the Postmaster General in accordance with their 
relative positions thus acquired." The idea of the Civil Service Com- 
niission seems to have been that in any examination conducted under 
civil-service rules, whether a post-office examination or one for a 
clerical or other position in the executive branch of the Government, 
the ex-service man was entitled to such certificate. The certificate 
given in the postmaster examination would be evidence which would 
enable the candidate to claim such preference in an^^ other examina- 
tion. This certificate may have been misleading when issued to an 
ex-service candidate for appointment as postmaster and led him to 
believe that if as a result of the examination he was put on the eli- 
gible list, he would have an absolute preference, without reference to 
the much higher grading of other eligibles. Since the order of Octo- 
ber 14, 1921, however, no mistake of this kind could occur. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER, OCTOBER 14, 1921. 

While the appointment of presidential postmasters is not within the legal 
scope of the civil service law, and, therefore, as a matter of law, no " prefer- 
ence " is applicable thereto, yet, in order that those young men and women who 
served in the World War, having their scholastic and business experience inter- 
cepted and interrupted thereby, may not suffer any disadvantage in the compe- 
tition for such postmasterships, I direct the Civil Service Commission, in rating 
the examination papers of such candidates, to add to their earned ratings 5 
points and to make certification to the Postmaster General in accordance with 
their relative positions thus acquired. 

I further direct that the time such candidates were in the service during the 
World War may be reckoned by the commission in making up the required 
length of business experience, and that all age limitations be waived. 

Gallatin, Tenn. (p. 163) : Gallatin, Tenn., has been referred to as 
a case where a nonresident has been appointed postmaster, " not- 
withstanding the fact that there were several excellent Republican 
applicants for the place who were residents of Gallatin." It will be 
sufficient to quote the language of the commission's memorandum^, 
found on page 163 : 

In January, 1921, under the former administration, the promotion of Mr. 
Oscar Smith from assistant postmaster at Gallatin to postmaster was proposed 
by the department to the commission, and the department was advised that he 
met the minimum qualifications for filling the position. Under the present 
administration the department first reported a vacancy at Gallatin, Tenn., in 
connection with reporting vacancies at many other ofBces and asked for exami- 
nation. Later, however, the department withdrew its request for examination 
and again nominated Mr. Smith, the assistant postmaster, for promotion. 

Ashland City, Tenn. (p. 163) : In this case it is charged that some 
individual had paid Mr. John W. Overall money for the appoint- 
ment as postmaster. The fact is no vacancy will occur at this office 
until next September, and the department has not requested aii. 
examination. 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SEKVICE COMMISSION. 31 

Portland, Tenn. (p. 162) : Portland, Tenn., is another case where 
it is charged that some individual paid Mr. John W. Overall money 
for the postmaster appointment. No vacancy will occur at this office 
until next October, and no examination has been asked for by the 
department. Neither this nor the case last preceding has come 
within the jurisdiction of the commission. 

Waynesboro, Tenn. (p. 163) : In this case three eligibles, Fielding 
Baker Hurst with an average of 83.98, Jesse A. Estes with an aver- 
age of 82.80, and John Daniel Helton with an average of 81.03, were 
certified. The commission had not been furnished with any infor- 
mation whatever that any one of the three eligibles was under indict- 
ment as charged. At the time of the filing of the memorandum of 
the Civil Service Commission no one had been recommended for 
appointment to this position. 

Pulaski, Tenn. (p. 162) : Another case where had some inquiry 
been made it would not have been brought to the attention of this 
committee ; a case where one candidate, Mr. Noble C. White, is alleged 
to have paid a sum of money to Mr. John W. Overall, Republican 
State committeeman, for the purpose of securing the postmastership 
at Pulaski. The memorandum furnished by the commission simply 
shows that Mr. White was not among the highest three eligibles cer- 
tified to the department. Those certified were William D. Kirkpat- 
rick, with an average per cent of 81.40; William B. Eomine, 79.20; 
Mahlon H. Webb, 78.60. It is not at all likely that the commission 
could have known of the payment of any money by Mr. White if 
such was the fact ; and if they did know it they were powerless to pre- 
vent it; the fact that Mr. White was not among the eligibles shows 
that neither the commission nor any of the examining division could 
have been in any wa}^ affected by such payment even if made. 

McKenzie, Tenn. (p. 148) : Charge that an examination having 
been held it was found that the eligibles announced " all turned out to 
be Democrats " and that thereupon the examination was canceled and 
a new examination ordered for postmaster at that town. One reason 
conceded for the second examination was that the office became second 
class after the first examination had been held. An examination was 
held September 24, 1921, with the result that there were found to be 
six eligibles, four of wdiom had had military service. While it had 
been the practice under the former administration to call for a new 
examination when an office was advanced to another class, and while 
at the request of the department a new examination was announced 
for March 14, 1922, it was done without the case being brought to the 
personal attention of the commission. The mernorandum states that 
" as soon as it did com.e to the attention of the commissioners that the 
first examination had resulted in several well-qualified eligibles, it 
took the matter up with the Post Office Department and canceled the 
second examination, the results of the first examination, that of Sep- 
tember 24, 1921, being recertified to the Post Office Department. 

Orangeburg, S. C. (pp. 42, 181-182) : Charge that the appointee, 
'Mr. Benjamin J. Mixson, as county dispenser of patronage, offered 
to sell the post-office appointment for Bo wen, S, C. ; and that the 
examiners of the commission refused to qualify him on that ground ; 
and that their action was overruled by some one in authority in the 
commission. 



32 INVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMHSTUSTG DIVISIOlsr CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

On examination and after confidential inquiry the name of Mr. 
Albert C. Ligon was placed first on the eligible list and Mr. Alonzo 
D. Webster second and Mr. Mixson third. Among the 39 citizens 
of Orangeburg of whom inquiry was made in regard to the fitness 
of these three candidates there was one who charged Mr. Mixson 
with having asked for money for his alleged influence in securing 
appointment to the position of postmaster at Bowman (not Bowen, 
as stated in the complaint). The commission says that the majority 
of persons gave favorable testimony. But the commission having 
learned that Mr. Mixson had sought to dispose of the post office at 
Bowman for a consideration and that this charge had been investi- 
gated by the Post Office Department asked for the report of the 
two inspectors who made it. It was the commission's judgment on 
reviewing the report that the evidence was too indefinite to warrant 
the commission in striking Mr. Mixson's name from the eligible list. 
In making certification of the highest three eligibles the commission 
called- attention to the report of the post-office inspectors concerning 
the charge against Mr. Mixson. 

On a careful examination in this case your committee are of the 
opinion that the commission should have declared Mr. Mixson in- 
eligible. While the proof was not convincing, yet it is believed 
that it was sufficient to create more than a mere suspicion. The 
report of the two post-office inspectors indicates that it was their 
belief that Mr. Mixson had sought to procure the payment to him 
from Postmaster Singletary of the sum of $300 for his assistance 
in procuring her appointment as postmaster at Bowman. The in- 
spectors' report concludes as follows: 

While it is our opinion that Mr. Mixson's candidacy for the position of post- 
master at Orangeburg is all that has caused him to seek out Judge Berry and 
withdraw his veiled demand for money, yet it is thought that this investigation 
will prevent further attempts of this nature. The closing of the case is 
recommended. 

The committee is not satisfied with this disposition of the case 
and do not think the Civil Service Commission should have accepted 
the recommendation of the post-office inspectors. 

It is to be noted that Mr. Mixson having been appointed, the ap- 
pointment was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post 
Eoads, investigated by a subcommittee of three, a majority or whom 
reported favorably, but that a majority of the full committee were 
of the opinion that the appointment should be rejected and so voted. 

RURAL CARRIERS. 

Chapel Hill, Tenn. (pp. 21, 163) : This is another case where it is 
charged that money had been paid to Mr. Overall. The committee 
can cio no better than to quote from the memorandum of the Civil 
Service Commission, found on page 163 : 

Senator McKellar next refers to the alleged appointment of a rural carrier 
at Cheap Hill, or Chapel Hill, Tenn., but here he fails to give any names or 
testimony or evidence indicating that any one of the three persons whose names 
were certified to the department for consideration in filling the rural-carrier 
position had paid money to Mr. Overall for any purpose whatsoever. The 
commission advised Senator McKellar in its letter of September 1, 1921, of 
the names of these three rural-carrier eligibles who were certified, and that 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 33 

the department had not reported selection from among the three; and the 
Senator also was advised of the provisions of law and rules relating to traf- 
ficking in appointments, and that " if a prima facie case is submitted to the 
conunission of violation of the Federal statutes relating to trafficking or of the 
civil-service rules, the commission will submit it to the Department of Jus- 
tice for prosecution, or take such administrative action as may be appropriate." 
The Civil Service Commission has not since heard from Senator McKellar 
in this connection. 

Murfreesboro, Tenn. (p. 164) : Another case in which it is alleged 
tliat complaint had been made regarding the appointment of a rural 
carrier at Murfreesboro, but no charge was made and no information 
whatever furnished which would serve as a basis for inquiry or 
investigation. 

COMPLAINTS INVOLVING EX-SEKVICE MEN. 

Cameron, Tex. (p. 42) : Complaint by Mr. Lloyd Mitchell, an ex- 
service man, that he was not given preference in connection with the 
selection of a postmaster. This complaint does not lie against the 
Civil Service Commission. The memorandum shows that by virtue 
of his credit of 5 points for military service he received the highest 
rating of 80.20; Green B. Taylor received second rating, 74.40; Mrs. 
Bessie Finley Hefly received a rating of 72. These names were cer- 
tified to the Post Office Department in the order named. The Presi- 
dent nominated the second eligible, which under Executive order of 
May 10 he had the clear right to do. 

Columbus, Kans. (p. 121) : Charge that W. F, Kurtz, an ex-service 
man, was unfairly treated and that ratings were intentionally with- 
held by the commission until the Senate had confirmed the appointee. 
The examination resulted as follows: Nathan W. Huston, average 
percentage 85.20; William F. Kurtz, 81.60, including five points 
added for military preference ; Emery W. Youngman, 74.80. There 
were nine other candidates. There was a personal investigation of 
the applicants. The commission gives a summary of the results of 
the examination and of inquiries made so far* as -they pertain to 
Nathan W. Huston, first on the list, and William F. Kurtz, second. 
The want of supervisory experience on the part of Mr. Kurtz seemed 
a deciding factor in giving him second place. In any event, having 
been certified by the commission as one of the three eligibles the 
matter of recommending which particular one should be appointed 
was for the Postmaster General, and, as stated by the commission, 
" is not within the jurisdiction of the commission." 

The committee does not believe that the commission erred in giv- 
ing Mr. Kurtz second place. The statement of the commission fully 
explains the delay in rating and making the certification. 

Culpeper, Va. (p. 105) : The charge before your committee is to 
the effect that Mr. J. H. Newhouse, an ex-service man, was denied 
y' registry arbitrarily through political influence, notwithstanding he 
made a rating of 84.40. 

. There is evidently a mistake in regard to the rating of Mr. New- 
house. The rating of 84.40 could not have been on the examination 
for postmaster. This is borne out by Mr. Newhouse's letter ad- 
dressed to Senator Robinson and filed with the committee. Mr. 
Newhouse says : " I have been under civil service working in post 

S. Rept. 836, 67-2 3 



34 INVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

office at Culpeper as clerk when I took the examination and made 
84.40." So it was in this examination and not the examination for 
postmaster that this rating was made. The memorandum of the 
commission shows that the highest three eligibles were Thomas W. 
Hendrick, 78.80; Newton S. Ritter, 75; and Otis R. Thornhill, 
74. The examination disclosed that notwithstanding his rating in 
an examination for clerk he was not among the highest three for 
postmaster, where the elements of education, preparatory training, 
business experience, and general fitness were all to be taken into ac- 
count. In regard to these qualifications, the commission further 
states that the three men certified were better qualified than Mr. 
Newhouse. But further, Mr. Newhouse, it appears, is not a veteran 
of the World War. It is to the ex-service men of this war that the 
President's order of October, 1921, applies. 

Duncannon, Pa. (p. 53) : Complaint by W. B. Brown that he was 
treated unfairly in the civil-service examination for this office. The 
office is third class and there were found to be 10 who received an 
eligible rating. Mr. Brown, with his credit of 5 points for military 
service, received a rating of 79.65,' being fifth on the list. The com- 
mission set forth in detail the ratings of the highest three eligibles 
in the several subjects on which they were examined, followed by a 
statement of the business experience of other candidates receiving 
an eligible rating, including Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown is only 27 years 
of age. The commission also points out that on July 14, 1920, under 
the Executive order of the former administration, Mr. Robert M. 
Barton, who was rated highest under the examination of September 
14, 1921, was then rated as the highest eligible, and that among four 
eligibles at the examination of July 14, 1920, Mr. Brown received 
the lowest eligible rating. This confirms the correctness of the judg- 
ment of the commission in the later examination. 

The committee is satisfied from the showing made that there was 
no unfair treatment of Mr. Brown on the part of the commission. 

Mansfield, Ark. fp. 109) : Charge that C. B. McDonald, ex-service 
man, was discriminated against. 

Examination held July 9, 1921, with the following eligibles in the 
order named : Claude B. McDonald, Luther H. Presson, and Charles 
H. Dixon. The Civil Service Commission say that both McDonald 
and Presson were certified to the Post Office Department as prefer- 
ence men. The charge that the commission discriminated against ex- 
service men is therefore untrue. 

Mittineague, Mass. (p. 38): Letter of Robert D. Cargile, with 
newspaper clipping, charging discrimination against John J. Ma- 
honey, who was recommended by war veterans and Secretary of 
War Weeks. There is also a telegram from the local post of the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars condemning alleged discrimination against 
Mr. Mahoney. 

Examination held August 26, 1921, with the following ratings: 
John J. Mahoney, 80.60; Donald A. MacDonald, 79; James H, 
Buckley (with preference), 75.20. The explanation here is that at 
the time Mr. Mahoney filed his application the commission was 
considering claims for preference on the same standard applying to 
the classified service which accords preference to honorably dis- 
charged soldiers, sailors, and marines. Before certification the Ex- 



INVESTIGATIOlSr EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 35 

ecutive order of October 14, 1921, was issued, which gave to veterans 
of the World War a flat bonus of 5 points added to their earned 
rating. It was on this basis that Mr, Mahoney's claim for preference 
was disallowed as applying to a presidential postmaster examina- 
tion, this not being a position in the classified service. The commis- 
sion point out that the ratings of Mr. Mahoney and Mr. MacDonald 
are only 1.6 per cent apart. The examination, as well as the confi- 
dential inquiry made of citizens of Mittineague, seem to have con- 
vinced the commission that there was this difference at least in the 
fitness of the two men. The President nominated Mr. MacDonald, 
which he had a clear right to do. 

The committee think the charge of discrimination can not be 
sustained. 

Monette, Ark. (p. 130) : Inquiry as to why Buren Flannigan was 
not appointed, he being the choice of patrons of the office and being 
in every respect eligible. The charge is made that no appointment 
to this office is to be made until one Guy Langley can establish his 
eligibility, and if this is true it will mean a discrimination against 
an ex-service man. 

The memorandum of the commission shows that the applications 
of Mrs. Eva E. Davenport and Mr, Guy H. Langley were canceled 
because they had not resided within the delivery of the Monette 
office for the required two years, hence it would appear that there is 
nothing in the charge that the case was being held up until Mr, Lang- 
ley could qualify. Two other candidates, Mr. Hancock and Mr. 
Wilford Flannigan did not take the written part of the examina- 
tion. The result of the examination was as follows: Mr. Buren 
Flannigan, 68.70 ; Mrs. Maud M. Smith, 57.05. Mr. Flannigan being 
entitled to military preference his name was certified to the Post 
Office Department. The department exercised its option and called 
for a new examination, and this examination was held on March 
11, 1922, with three applicants — Guy H. Langley, Wilford Flanni- 
gan, and Alfred N, Pierce. Mr. Buren Flannigan did not apply for 
the second examination. Mr. Langley had completed the required 
two years' residence at the time of filing the application for the 
second examination. He did not attain the required rating, and the 
result was transmitted by the Civil Service Commission to the Post 
Office Department. What the. proceedings since have been your com- 
mittee is not informed, but up until the date of the transmission of 
the result of the second examination to the Post Office Department 
we see nothing in the proceedings to warrant the charge of dis- 
crimination. 

Mount Jackson, Va. (p. 47) : Charge by Mr. E. L, Hynes, whose 
letter to Senator Eobinson was filed with the committee, that Hubert 
B, Moore, an ex-service man, though having the highest grade in 
the list had his appointment withheld without reason. 

Examination held October 8, 1921 ; five candidates, of whom four 
received eligible ratings. Mr. Hubert D. Moore with his preference 
of 5 points for military service stood the highest with a rating of 
83.45. Mr. Lemuel B. Wolfe had an earned rating of 81, Notwith- 
standing the commission had certified Mr. Moore with the highest 
rating, the President appointed Mr. Wolfe, the second eligible. The 
commission therefore had nothing whatever to do with the selection 



36 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

from the eligible list as certified to the Post Office Department, and 
under the order of May 10, 1921, it was within the discretion of the 
President to make the selection from the highest three eligibles 

Natchitoches, La. (pp. 155-157) : Charge made by Mr. E. M. Bar- 
low that he was informed that his name was second on the list of 
eligibles and that he was informed later that he was not among the 
highest three. 

For full consideration of this case reference is made to the memo- 
randum. The care exercised by the commission in this case will 
surely appear therefrom. The following statement is significant : 

The commission never at any time placed the name of Mr. Barlow second 
on the eligible list for postmaster, and never has at any time consulted or was 
consulted by Representative Aswell as to Mr. Barlow's candidacy or that of 
any other applicant for postmaster at Natchitoches. The rating of the candi- 
dates was made but once and was never reconsidered or changed. 

It would appear that full consideration had been given to the fact 
that Mr. Barlow was entitled to 5 points for military service in 
addition to his earned ratings and still he could not be named among 
the highest three eligibles. At the time of filing the memorandum, 
namely, April 12, 1922, no nomination had been reported to the com- 
mission, 

New Castle, Del. (p. 72) : Charge of discrimination in the refusal 
to appoint John P. Murphy, who received the highest rating, of 86- 
per cent, or Jesse A. McKay who, with preference added received 
a rating of 79.20, and because Edward H. Naylor, third on the list, 
with a rating of 71 per cent, was appointed. The certification made 
by the Civil Service Commission gave the ratings in the order shown. 
Everybody had notice that under the Executive oTder of May 10,, 
1921, the President could select any one of the highest three 
eligibles. He exercised his discretion in this regard and nominated 
Mr. Najdor. Whatever may be said of the order or of the action of 
the Executive thereunder, no charge will lie against the Civil Service- 
Commission or its examining division. 

Winchendon, Mass. (p. 69) : Charge of discrimination against Mr. 
Rutherford, an ex-service man. The highest three eligibles stood r 
William H. Pierce, 90.40; John G. Rutherford (preference), 80; 
James J. Hunt, 75.60; examination held August 12, 1921. Mr. 
Pierce, the highest eligible, had held the position of postmaster at 
Winchendon for a period of 16 years. The President having the 
right to select from the highest three eligibles, and the eligibles hav- 
ing been fairly rated, as the committee believes, no fault is to be 
charged against the Civil Service Commission. 

Willow Hill, 111. (p. 107): Three persons qualified as follows: 
Lewis H. Jenkins, with preference, 78.85 ; Hey Smith, 77.25 ; Miss 
Ethel R. Jenkins, 70.10. The Civil Service Commission had ap- 
parently with fairness ascertained who were the highest three 
eligibles, and certified the same to the Post Office Department. It 
had been charged that Mr. Jenkins had been promised .the post-' 
mastership at Willow Hill. The Civil Service Commission in the 
discharge of its duty could, of course, take no cognizance of any 
such promises, and apparently did not do so. 

Bogata, 111., rural mail carrier (pp. 106-107) : Mr. Lewis Ti. Jen- 
kins, an applicant for the position of rural carrier, and complainant 
in this case, stood second of the highest three eligibles first named^ 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 37 

but- later, and on January 19, 1922, it was ordered that in examina- 
tions for "rural mail carrier the practice theretofore followed of es- 
tablishing registers of eligibles from applicants through the county 
at large should be abandoned, and that thereafter only persons living 
within the delivery of the local office should be appointed to the posi- 
tion of rural carrier from that office. This eliminated both Mr. Jen- 
kins and Mr. Ernest L. Eidler from the list. Three other eligibles 
were certified, from whom the second on the list, Eli Gambriel, was 
appointed. Mr. Jenkins, it would appear, has no just cause of com- 
plaint. 

The minute of the Civil Service Commission of January 19, 1922, is 
as follows: 

After careful consideration, the commission has decided to change the present 
method of certification for rural carriers by discontinuing the county unit en- 
tirely and maintaining a local register for each post office having rural delivery. 
This change is to apply to existing registers as. well as to others resulting from' 
future examinations. 

Holland, Ark., rural mail carrier (p. Ill) : Complaint is made by 
Jesse E. Johnston that he, with other ex-service men, was discrimi- 
nated against in the appointment of rural mail carrier at Holland. 
He charges that the man appointed is not only not an ex-service man, 
but was not even among the first three eligibles. The commission sets 
forth the regulations governing at the time of the certification to 
fill the position of rural carrier at this place, as follows : 

Certification will be made from a register as it appears on the day on which 
requisition tlierefor is received by the commission in accordance with the fol- 
lowing : For each vacancy there will be certified the name of the person stand- 
ing highest on the register who has his actual domicile in the territory sup- 
plied by the post office at which the vacancy exists, together with the names of 
the two eligibles standing highest on the register for the entire county who 
have not expressed unwillingness to accept appointment at such post office. 
After due opportunity to become eligible has been given to persons having 
their domicile m the territory of such office and such persons fail to become 
eligible the three eligibles standing highest on the county register who have 
not expressed unwillingness to accept appointment at such office will be 
certified. 

Of the three who were certified it appears that there was no prefer- 
ence eligible residing within the delivery of the Holland office and 
that the highest local civilian eligible was certified. The certification 
list was as follows: Marvin F. Stevenson, of Holland, 89 per cent; 
Earl E. Heffington, of Enola (preference), 86.20; Herbert C. Redick, 
of Vilonia (preference), 71. The department selected the local 
eligible who had attainecl the highest rating in the examination. The 
committee from the showing made sees nothing to criticize in the 
methods of the commission in this case. It will be observed that this 
\3ase fell under the old rule which permitted appointments from the 
<!;ounty. It thus differs from the Bogata case. 

Pearcy, Ark., rural mail carrier (p. 143) : Charged by Mr. Grover 
B. Hale that his aj^pointment as rural carrier had been revoked and 
B. F. Langford, to whom the appointment was later offered, is not 
desirable. The examination, held June 11, 1921, resulted as follows: 
Grover B. Hale, of Pearcy (preference), 79.30; Barry F. Langford, 
of Pearcy (preference), 73.50; Thomas H. Massey, of Pearcy, 74.40; 
Thomas Henderson, of Bonnerdale, 73.30. Later the first three 
named were certified in the order given to fill a vacancy on route 1. 



38 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

The department first reported the selection of Mr. Hale, but later 
revoked this appointment and selected Mr. Langford, stating that it 
had decided that the interests of the service would be better sub- 
iserved by the appointment of another eligible than Mr. Hale. This 
was optional with the department; it could select any one of the 
highest three eligibles. At the time of filing its memorandum nothing 
had been received by the Civil Service Commission touching the un- 
desirability of Mr. Langford's appointment save the general state- 
ment made by Mr. Hale. If any injustice was done Mr. Hale, it is 
plainly not due to the action of the Civil Service Commission but 
in the exercise of the discretion allowed to the Post Office Depart- 
ment in recommending and the President in appointing. 

W. C. Allen, of Sevierville, Tenn. (p. 146), charges that a woman 
was appointed post-office clerk and an ex-service man was ignored. 

It appears that Mr. George G. Allen, a preference candidate, re- 
ceived 88.8, but it was a case wherein the department had the right 
to ask for certification from either the male or female clerk register, 
and the department requested female eligibles. Miss Juanita Mas- 
sey, having received a rating of 85.4, was the highest female eligible 
and was accordingly certified. 

There can be no complaint here, the action of the commission hav- 
ing been in accordance with the civil service act and rules. 

John B. Allman, of Washington, D. C. : In this case, your com- 
mittee feels that it can not do better than refer to the statement 
made by the Civil Service Commission found at pages 127-128, Mr, 
Allman made application for agent under the antinarcotic act. 
His qualifications for the place are set forth in detail in the com- 
mission's memorandum. The onlj comment the committee cares to 
make is that Mr. Allman's want of knowledge of criminal investiga- 
tion and procedure under this act was such as to justify the com- 
mission in denying him eligibility for appointment, 

E, S, Bettelheim, jr., Washington, D. C: Mr. E. S. Bettelheim, 
jr., chairman of the national legislative committee, Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, charges that the Civil Service Commission took sev- 
eral months to establish eligible registers, and refers to using up an 
old register before a new one is established — auditor, for instance. 
The commission discusses the subject fully, page 131-133. To this 
discussion the committee may add its general conclusion that noth- 
ing is found in the entire record to show that the Civil Service Com- 
mission has discriminated against the ex-service men or veterans of 
foreign wars. The commission has always allowed 5 points for 
service to ex-soldiers in postmaster examination, and given military 
preference in other examinations, and the committee agrees with 
the commission that the complaints of Mr, Bettelheim are not justi- 
fied. Causes for any delay in establishing eligible registers in 
what is termed examinations of a nonassemblecl type are explained 
in the statement of the commission, 

E, M. Davis, of Washington, D. C. (p. 51) : Mr. E. M. Davis, 813 
Mount Vernon Place, Washington, D. C, claims to have had from 
personal knowledge information that he feels sure will be of interest 
in civil-service inquiry as to appointment to Government positions 
and claims of preference for honorably discharged soldiers and sail- 
ors, Mr. Davis did not appear before the committee nor furnish the 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 39 

committee any of the alleged information. The committee is dis- 
posed to doubt his ability to furnish any specific information which 
would be of value. 

Asa W. De La Vergne, Washington, D. C. : Mr. Asa W. De La 
Vergne, an ex-service man of the District of Columbia, charges that 
men without civil-service status have been placed in positions while 
he has been kept out, due to personal reasons. The commission ex- 
plains his case on pages 109-110, hearings. Mr. De La Vergne re- 
ceived a rating of 98 per cent, with veteran preference, as lithographic 
transferrer, and went on the register March 25, 1921. The position 
involved was one in the Weather Bureau paying $1,200 a year, and 
the announcement for the examination stated what the entrance salary 
would be. Mr. De La Vergne asked for $1,600 per annum. In 
March, 1922, Mr. De La Vergne was again certified as No. 1, to a 
similar position at $1,200. At the date of filing the memorandum 
the bureau had not made its selection. As to the charge that men 
are placed in positions without civil-service status, Mr. De La Vergne 
furnishes no list of positions or the names of persons, and there is 
nothing on which to base an investigation. It is well known that 
there are some Government positions outside the civil service, and 
temporary appointments are sometimes made pending the establish- 
ment of a register of eligibles. The committee does not believe there 
is any ground for the charge that Mr. De La Vergne has been kept 
out of the service for personal reasons. 

I. S. Prenner, Philadelphia, Pa. (p. 50) : In the case of Mr. I. S. 
Prenner, spoken of as a technical patent expert, it is very evident 
from the memorandum filed by the commission that he can have no 
complaint against the commission. He was a successful competitor 
in three examinations for positions in the service of the War De- 
partment, was granted military preference, and was certified several 
times to different positions in the service of the War Department, 
but was not selected. The commission performed its whole duty in 
giving Mr. Prenner a fair examination and in according him the 
military preference due him, and in certifying him as one of the eli- 
gibles. The fault in Mr. Prenner's case, if any, lies with the depart- 
ment to which he was certified. 

A. E. Stevens, Washington, D. C. (p. 51) : Concerning the com- 
plaint made by Mr. A. E. Stevens that his brother, Edward A. 
Stevens, an ex-service man, had not received an appointment after 
he had qualified, it may be said that his letter does not disclose any 
failure or default in any matter of which the commission has juris- 
diction. 

Earl S. Bishop, Baltimore, Md. (p. 47) : Charges that in the selec- 
tion of Mr. Donald B. Bradner as civilian chief of the chemical re- 
search and development division at Edgewood Arsenal others better 
qualified were discriminated against. The commission in this case 
sets forth quite fully the standard entrance requirements for the 
position of chemist at the arsenal, this being the "main laboratory 
and experimental station of the Chemical Warfare Service of the 
United States." Mr. Bradner's name was not presented by the War 
Department for noncompetitive appointment, and he entered the 
competition with every other person and attained a rating which 
placed him among the highest three eligibles for permanent ap- 



40 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

pointment. That lie was not appointed does not appear to have 
been due to any fault of the Civil Service Commission. 

George W. Dooley (pj). 67-68) : A letter from George W. Dooley 
making complaint because he was not appointed to the position of 
superintendent in the office of the United States appraiser of mer- 
chandise, customs service, Philadelphia, at a salary of $1,800. Mr. 
Dooley was nominated by the appraiser for temporary appointment. 
The recommendation was indorsed by the secretary of the third 
civil service district and transmitted to the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury. Later the commission returned eight applications which had 
been given a preliminary rating on experience, but that of Mr, 
Dooley was retained in the commission's office " owing to an un- 
favorable voucher, which seems to cast doubt on the veracity of 
some of his claims." An investigation followed, from which it was 
found that his experience was favorable, and he was given a rating 
of 70 per cent in that subject, but on general eligible averages Mr. 
Dooley, it appears, was the lowest among six persons. The highest 
three, all of whom were entitled to preference because of military 
service, were certified, and the appraiser of merchandise having 
recommended the appointment of one of these, the appointment was 
made. There seems to be absolutely no ground for Mr. Dooley's 
contention that he was discriminated against. The district secre- 
tary surely did not, for the reason that he approved the nomination 
made by the appraiser for Mr. Dooley's temporary appointment as 
superintendent. Neither had the district secretary anything to do 
with the ratings of any subject on the examination. A final and 
conclusive reason for not certifying Mr. Dooley for appointment 
was that he was not an ex-service man ; for an appointment of this 
kind, not being a postmaster appointment, those entitled to military 
preference had to be first certified. 

Fred J. Kellenbeck, Newark, N. J, (p. 73) : This case is not within 
the jurisdiction of the commission. The letter submitted in this 
case refers to an examination held by the New Jersey State Civil 
Service Commission. 

Ellis Pugh, Philadelphia, Pa. (p. 71) : Complaint is made by Mr. 
Ellis Pugh because of the promotion of Mrs. Helen Klein in the 
Philadelphia Mint. The only thing the Civil Service Commission 
had to do with this case was in determining the examination status 
for promottion of Mrs. Klein. Prior to her promotion she had been 
emi^loyed temporarily, and although her work had been that of a 
noneducational position, she had passed the clerk examination and 
had served for some time in the mint. The promotion itself is within 
the jurisdiction of the office in which the person is employed, and 
the commission's only authority is that of passing upon the qualifi- 
cations of a person proposed for promotion when the position to 
which persons promoted requires different qualifications from those 
required in the lower-grade position. Mrs. Klein having been under 
temporary appointment and having passed the clerk examination, 
the commission was, in the opinion of the committee, justified in 
approving her promotion. 

Albert J. Petrie, New Orleans, La. (p. 73) : Complaint is made by 
Albert J. Petrie, of 5703 Chartres Street, New Orleans, that " con- 
trolling Government offices are secretly but very effectively prevent- 
ing the' appointment of former soldiers to civil-service positions, 



INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 41 

etc. ;" further charging that certain individuals of the United States 
Civil Service Commission are " crooked beyond doubt," and stating 
that he can furnish the " inside dope," affidavits, and convincing evi- 
dence to prove this charge, if desired, and that he will testify before 
an investigation committee if necessary. The committee have not 
felt called upon to make inquiry into the charges made by Mr. Petrie. 
The record of all specific cases which have been referred to the com- 
mittee and about which the committee has made inquiry is in itself a 
refutation of the wholesale charge made by Mr. Petrie. It is not 
believed that he has in his possession any information which will 
impugn the integrity of the commission in the matter of civil-service 
examinations. 

Walter B. Sweeney, railway mail clerk (p. 108) : A letter from 
the mother of Walter B. Sweeney, charges in effect that her son's 
papers in the examination for railway mail clerk were improperly 
rated. The commission in its memorandum sets forth the ratings 
assigned to Mr. Sweeney, in the various subjects, examination in 
which is required. His general average is 64.40. Mr. Sweeney 
showed that he possessed certain preliminary qualifications, but 
could not satisfactorily pass the written examination. The commis- 
sion says that his ratings were determined by comparison of his 
answers and other work with known and accepted standards and 
are not open to errors of judgment on the part of the examiners. 
It would appear that on a careful reconsideration of Mr. Sweeney's 
ratings, the commission concluded that the original ratings should 
stand. 

In view of the readiness of the Civil Service Commission to fur- 
nish full data from its records relating to the methods and procedure 
of the examination and certification of the various candidates for 
the position of postmaster and other positions in the civil service, 
which methods and procedure were brought into question by the 
statements made to and letters filed with the committee, the commit- 
tee did not deem it necessary to subpcena as witnesses individual 
members of the examining division or of the commission itself to 
testify before the committee. The committee is satisfied that the 
course pursued was a just and proper one and that the personal at- 
tendance and testimony of the witnesses representing the commis- 
sion or the examining division would have led in no case to a different 
result or conclusion. The committee itself was given to understand 
that the records of the commission were open to inspection at any 
time by the members of the committee and in cases where the record 
was in fact examined by the committee it was found that there was 
more to justify the action of the commission in its certification of 
eligibles than the memoranda submitted by the commission disclosed. 
Considerable controversy over certification and nomination of can- 
didates for various places has arisen out of the highest three eligibility 
rule. It is a question whether or not there would have been less of 
complaint had the original rule requiring the certification of the high- 
est eligible still prevailed. But this is a matter of policy which is 
not Avithin the scope of the inquiry conducted by this committee under 
Senate Resolution 199. 

From the investigation made of each and every case submitted to 
the committee and in regard to which some complaint had been made, 



42 INVESTIGATION EXAMINING DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

your committee is of the opinion that the Civil Service Commission 
and its examining division have themselves been free from political 
bias or prejudice in their work of examining and certifying candi- 
dates and eligibles for appointment and that they have not been in- 
fluenced in the ratings made by pressure from the outside. 

Mistakes may have been made; in a work of such magnitude as 
that imposed on the Civil Service Commission and its examiners, it 
would be wonderful if there were not some mistakes. The examples 
here given among the many thousands which come within their juris- 
diction, show the great care and discriminating judgment they milst 
necessarily exercise in order to do justice among a number of appli- 
cants, all perhaps qualified, but not equally qualified, for the place. 
But these examples would indicate also that the mistakes are surpris- 
ingly few in number and that such as may have been made are due to 
errors of judgment and not to any wrong or improper intent. Candi- 
dates and the public as well should appreciate the fact that as to post- 
masters of the first, second, and third classes, it is the President who 
appoints ; that whatever the number of eligibles, only three can be 
certified, and of the three, only one can be selected for appointment, 
and when the Civil Service Commission has made final certification 
of the highest three eligibles its work is done. Judged alone by the 
cases presented, your committee believes that the work of the commis- 
sion has been ably and conscientiously performed, and that political 
influence has not been used, or, if sought to be used, has had no effect, 
in the examinations conducted under the supervision of the commis- 
sion, or in the making or alteration of grades, and that acts of Con- 
gress and Executive orders giving preference to ex-service men in 
appointment to office under civil-service regulation have been observed 
by the commission and its examiners. 

Thomas Sterling, 
Albert B. Cummins, 
Le Baron B. Colt, 
Jos. E. Ransdell, 

Coiivmittee. . 
(j 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 228 108 5. 



